*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 65306 ***
[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.
1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
brackets "{123}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.
2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
without surrounding empty lines.
3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
between subjects.
5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
with spaces and newlines.
6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.
Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
spaces.
References to other articles in this work are in all upper case
(as in the original) and indented six spaces. They usually
begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".
Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
and in italics, as in the original. The bibliography in
APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details, including
URLs of available internet versions.
----------Subject: End----------
indicates the end of a long group of subheadings or other
large block.
End Transcriber's Notes.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
History For Ready Reference, Volume 1 of 6
From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists
Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History
For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language
By J. N. Larned
With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley
In Five Volumes
Volume I--A To Elba
Springfield, Massachusetts.
The C. A. Nichols Company., Publishers
MDCCCXCV
Copyright,1893,
By J. N. Larned.
The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
United States Of America
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.
Preface.
This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better
Literature of History in the English language, and to give it
an organized body--a system--adapted to the greatest
convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading,
for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.
The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily
distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of
books,--embracing the whole range (in the English language) of
standard historical writing, both general and special: the
biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the
social investigations, the archeological researches, the
ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important
tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical
knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits,
careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found,
and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired.
The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples,
and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are
faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair
selection from its fruits.
History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its
scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have
searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its
meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words.
If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but
slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is
presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its
topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their
large relations, both national and international.
For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the
broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could
possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common
to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many
styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light
which shines directly from the pens that have made History
luminous by their interpretations.
Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the
finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which
are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must
sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully
chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important
of such documents--charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions,
covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions
of many countries--have been accordingly introduced and are easily
to be found.
The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical,
and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed,
and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the
same alphabetical and chronological order.
Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully
but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and
consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler
discussion by references from each caption under which it may be
sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of
five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number,
at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of
encyclopedic works.
Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general
sketch of the history of Europe, and in what I have called the
"Logical Outlines" of a number of national histories, which are
printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been
dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work
represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt
warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without
permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from
books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or
deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those,
authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or
denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received
the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and
count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly
letters of permission which have come to me from authors and
publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific
acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.
The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of
property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been
taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by
omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional
interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by
paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is
shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of
different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for
each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the
divergences between English and American orthography; but, since
much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions
of English books, and since both copyists and printers have
worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not
have governed with strict consistency throughout.
J. N. L.
The Buffalo Library,
Buffalo, New York, December, 1893.
Acknowledgments.
In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy
and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I
have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now
proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those
persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind
permissions. They are as follows:
Authors.
Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
Gen. Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
Gen. Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under Gen. Pope," by the late Gen. George H.
Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late Gen. Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late Gen. A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late Gen. Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late Gen. Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
Gen. R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
Gen. Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.
Publishers.
London:
Messrs.
W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.
New York:
Messrs.
D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;
Edinburgh:
Messrs.
William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.
Philadelphia:
Messrs.
L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.
Boston:
Messrs.
Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.
Dublin:
Messrs.
James Duffy & Company;
Hodges, Figgis & Company;
J. J. Lalor.
Chicago:
Messrs.
Callaghan & Company;
A. C. McClurg & Company;
Cincinnati:
Messrs.
Robert Clarke & Company;
Jones Brothers Publishing Company;
Hartford, Connecticut:
Messrs.
O. D. Case & Company;
S. S. Scranton & Company;
Albany:
Messrs.
Joel Munsell's Sons.
Cambridge, England:
The University Press.
Norwich, Connecticut:
The Henry Bill Publishing Company;
Oxford:
The Clarendon Press.
Providence, R. I.
J. A. & R. A. Reid.
A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I
am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of
eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the
proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their
suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance
given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.
In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I
owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among
whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond,
Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no
feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which
places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of
which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is
the head.
I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with
that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and
drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes
have been produced.
J. N. Larned.
List Of Maps And Plans.
'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
To follow page 432
Logical Outlines, In Colors.
Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.
Austrian history, To follow page 198.
Chronological Tables.
The Seventeenth Century:
First half and second half, To follow page 208.
To the Peloponnesian War, and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
To follow page 166.
Appendices To Volume I.
A. Notes to Ethnographic map;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
by Mr. A. C. Reiley.
D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;
Mr. A. C. Reiley.
E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
by Major J. W. Powell and
Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.
F. Bibliography of America
(Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology, and Ethnology),
and of Austria.
{1}
History For Ready Reference.
A. C. Ante Christum;
used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
B. C.--Before Christ.
A. D. Anno Domini;
The Year of Our Lord.
See ERA, CHRISTIAN.
A. E. I. O. U.
"The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used
by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate,
books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est
Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist
Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not
safe in an inch of his dominions."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, volume 2, page 89, foot-note.
A. H. Anno Hejiræ.
See ERA, MAHOMETAN.
A. M.
"Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the
beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted
chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.
A. U. C., OR U. C.
"Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno
urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the
Year of Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 753.
AACHEN.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.
AARAU, Peace of (1712).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
ABÆ, Oracle of.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
ABBAS I. (called The Great), Shah of Persia; A. D. 1582-1627
Abbas II., A. D. 1641-1666.
Abbas III., A. D. 1732-1736.
ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
ABBEY.--ABBOT.--ABBESS.
See MONASTERY.
ABDALLEES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
ABDALMELIK, Caliph, A. D. 684-705.
ABD-EL-KADER,
The War of the French in Algiers with.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
ABDICATIONS.
Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.
See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.
Amadeo of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Charles V. Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561,
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
Charles X. King of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Christina, Regent of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
Christina, Queen of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
Diocletian, Emperor.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
Louis Philippe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
Milan, King of Servia.
See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.
Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, and King of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889,
and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
Ptolemy I. of Egypt.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.
Victor Emanuel I.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
William I., King of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
ABDUL-AZIZ, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1861-1876.
ABDUL-HAMID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1774-1789.
Abdul-Hamid II., 1876-.
ABDUL-MEDJID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1839-1861.
ABEL, King of Denmark, A. D. 1250-1252.
ABENCERRAGES, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273, and 1476-1492.
ABENSBURG, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A.D. 1758.
ABERDEEN MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852, and 1855.
ABIPONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
ABNAKIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.
ABO, Treaty of (1743).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
ABOLITIONISM IN AMERICA, The Rise of.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.
ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
ABOUKIR, Naval Battle of (or Battle of the Nile).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
Land-battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
ABRAHAM, The Plains of.
That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable
victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so
called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham,
who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the
colony."
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 2, page 289.
For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the
Plains of Abraham,
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759, (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.
In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live
on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do
not live in the country. ... Absenteeism is an old evil, and
in very early times received attention from the government.
... Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from
the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are
apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly
poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is
a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. ... I
am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the
country and the people. ... It is too much to attribute to it
all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is,
however, an important consideration that the people regard it
as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions
of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely
or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."
D. B. King, The Irish Question, pages 5-11.
{2}
ABSOROKOS, OR CROWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ABU-BEKR, Caliph, A. D. 632-634.
ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
ABUL ABBAS, Caliph, A. D. 750-754.
ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.
"Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity
into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of
Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the
church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"--or
Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."
H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
page 4.
ABURY, OR AVEBURY.--STONEHENGE.--CARNAC.
"The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and
Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200,
are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible
relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing
group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is
that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred
by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the
beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of
unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by
a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of
earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of
stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded
long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton,
and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in
another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the
largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130
feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second
to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the
pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful
parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the
ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty
are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed
among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge
on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury,
since not only are some of the stones used in its construction
worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than
those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a
circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen
stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into
each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet
within this was a circle of small foreign stones ... and
within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a
horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet
high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called
the altar-stone. ... At a distance of 100 feet from the outer
line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer
circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and
includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date
than some of the barrows of the district."
W. B. Dawkins; Early Man in Britain, chapter 10.
"Stonehenge ... may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the
Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time,
the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being
probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the
stones are all in their natural condition, while those of
Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude
that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the
close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of
Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as
temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved
to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be
described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by
a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus,
sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone
circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany,
consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly
both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground,
while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues
originally extended for several miles, but at present they are
very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for
agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are
several detached portions, which, however, have the same
general direction, and appear to have been connected together.
... Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the
Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as
having been erected during the same period."
Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5.
ABYDOS.
An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont,
mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in
alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is
supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at
different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and
Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the
Hellespont--the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero
and Leander--nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in
the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge
of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an
important victory over the Peloponnesians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480, and 411-407.
ABYDOS, Tablet of.
One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in
the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It
gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his
ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when
found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M.
Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the
first.
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,
volume 1, book 3.
ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.
See ETHIOPIA.
ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.
Conversion to Christianity.
"Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native
country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer,
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would
appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or
Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early
in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for
the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he
and his companions were attacked at a place where they had
landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two
youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of
Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who
advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be
his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who
left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of
the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the
prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he
became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such
Christian traders as visited the country, had already
introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia,
repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and
... Athanasius ... consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum
[the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus
founded continues to this day subject to the see of
Alexandria."
J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church,
book 2, chapter 6.
{3}
ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
Wars in Arabia.
Struggle with the Mahometans.
Isolation from the Christian world.
"The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in
Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians,
under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show
their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The
prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a
zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging
the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to
suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants
who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes
of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be
murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this
a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered
Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a
Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But
at the death of the latter, which happened soon after,
Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a
natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now
became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before.
... Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign
of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the
undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and
was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the
Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent
empire of the Homerites, and established a new government
favourable to the Christians."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, second period, section 1.
"In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the
dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power
seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire,
sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed
themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority
in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of
it."
"It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their
acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way
to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon
afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia,
spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated
the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile
Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of
Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith;
presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous
followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and
incessant wars ravaged her territories. ... She lost her
commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital
threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. ...
There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk
under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the
Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable
moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."
M. Russell, Nubia and Abyssinia, chapter 3.
"When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia,
ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of
its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut
off from communication with the rest of Christendom. ... They
[the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a
semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely
mixed with Jewish customs."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5.
ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
European Attempts at Intercourse.
Intrusion of the Gallas.
Intestine conflicts.
"About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
impress upon Ethiopia. ... Prince Henry of Portugal ... next
opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
Negus, or Nagash--the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
{4}
Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
"In the middle of the 16th century ... a
migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. ... But the same
fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
and civilization. ... After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
and the inhabitants sold into slavery. ... Towards the middle
of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."
H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
Introduction.
ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
Advent of King Theodore.
His English captives and the Expedition which released them.
"Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when
he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras
Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose
name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the
boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better
known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old
family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land
begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated
in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a
considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life
was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla
bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and
plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the
life of a freebooter. ... Adventurers flocked to his standard;
his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras
Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central
Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now
resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent
of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself
crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking
the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared
that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr.
Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with
admiration of his talents and character, and became his
counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his
life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several
misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The
British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden,
immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of
Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was
entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to
the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter,
duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the
Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made.
Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences
of the indifference of the British Government to his
overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and
imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same
time he was still further offended by certain passages in a
book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary
named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the
latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging
and torture. The first step taken by the British Government,
when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England,
was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a
letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the
captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made
its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore
seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised
freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became
filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's
credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and
intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was
drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken
cogitations was a determination to detain the mission--at any
rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of
skilled artisans and machinery from England."
{5}
Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into
confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were
allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation
known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be
sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was
actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil
engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery
and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the
release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year
was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until
September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000
British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert
Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian
to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous
difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and
transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868,
to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where
Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400
miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed
to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with
no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when
it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by
the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a
few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was
simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and
when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on
the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance
left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the
captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an
unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from
the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which
he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused
these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and
stormed by the British troops--slight resistance being
made--he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the
place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in
himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June
the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was
sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."
Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
volume 9, chapter 28.
"The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore
failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the
front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and
afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th
March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or
Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek
of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment
of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral ... promises a new era
for Abyssinia."
T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, chapter 9.
ALSO IN
H. A. Stern, The Captive Missionary.
H. M. Stanley, Coomassie and Magdala, part 2.
ACABA, the Pledges of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ACADEMY, The Athenian.
"The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens,
was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the
school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty
plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle
stream rolled through it."
G. H. Lewes, Biog. History of Philosophy, 6th Epoch.
The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose
for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which
were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different
quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance
of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily
exercises and athletic feats. ... Before long several of the
schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even
took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the
Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at
home. Gradually we find the traces of some material
provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the
different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the
sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy,
which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There
lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. ...
Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum,
in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably
possessed the house and garden which after his death came into
the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."
W. W. Capes, University life in Ancient Athens,
pages. 31-33.
For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other
gymnasia of Athens.
See GYMNASIA GREEK.
Concerning the suppression of the Academy,
See ATHENS: A. D. 529.
ACADIA.
See NOVA SCOTIA.
ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.
Their expulsion.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730; 1749-1755, and 1755.
ACARNANIANS.
See AKARNANIANS.
ACAWOIOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
ACCAD.--ACCADIANS.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
ACCOLADE.
"The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order
of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the
cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body,
the neck, whereon it was struck. ... Many writers have
imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier
might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is
not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as
the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to
trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the
religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only
ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of
battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not
allow of many ceremonies."
C. Mills, History of Chivalry, page 1, 53, and foot-note.
ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.
This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League"
of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements
in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the
towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with
its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa,
Terina and Pyxus. ... The language of Polybius regarding the
Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to
these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and
friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and
the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of
the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 10.
{6}
ACHÆAN LEAGUE.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ACHÆMENIDS, The.
The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings
of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an
ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian
tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King
Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family
have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we
have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was
Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of
Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis,
the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called
Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the
tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger
branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had
two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger
Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of
Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that
eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not
correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and
that he was the ninth king."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, volume 5, book 8, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
book 7 of Herodotus.
See, also, PERSIA, ANCIENT.
ACHAIA:
"Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast
of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller
would pass into Achaia--a name which designated the narrow
strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities
between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the
peninsula. ... Achaean cities--twelve in number at least, if
not more--divided this long strip of land amongst them, from
the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on
one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on
the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends
and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once
occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had
expelled."
G. Grote, History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).
After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and
Epirus.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
"In the Homeric poems, where ... the 'Hellenes' only appear in
one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed
by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But
the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian
people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the
opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later
time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were
nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock.
... [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its
earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the
special name of a population dwelling in the north of the
Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."
Georg Friedrich Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, Introduction.
"The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the
Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national
body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or
independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear
neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest
and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the
Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians.
Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always
regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. ...
The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast
of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible
to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people
originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact
anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the
main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families,
from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression
'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
M. Duncker, History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2.
See, also,
ACHAIA,
and
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.
Mediæval Principality.
Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in
Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a
major part of the Peloponnesus--then beginning to be called
the Morea--by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted
by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger--nephew and namesake
of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the
conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was
invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as
it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him
in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally
succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,
who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the
Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a
destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently
the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and
Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the
title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of
Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the
Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and
ravages.
G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the
Crusaders, chapter 8.
ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.
Achmet II., 1691-1695.
Achmet III., 1703-1730.
ACHRADINA.
A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the
"outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the
island, which was the "inner city."
ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.
After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to
the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle
for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four
brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save
one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a
soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the
title of king. His authority was established over the greater
part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and
Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern
Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The
suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the
Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,
when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were
surrendered to him.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to
1057, book 2, chapter 2, section 2.
{7}
ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
ACOLAHUS, The.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
ACOLYTH, The.
See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.
ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.
After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to
deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of
which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in
the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.
The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and
those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The
pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.
Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 7.
ACRABATTENE, Battle of.
A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews
under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 8.
ACRAGAS.
See AGRIGENTUM.
ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
ACRE: A. D.1187.
Taken from the Christians by Saladin.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.
See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.
ACRE: A. D. 1291.
The Final triumph of the Moslems.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
ACRE: 18th Century.
Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.
"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the
history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of
Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost
entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored
its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway
comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by
the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and
adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique
marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."
M. Malte-Brun, System of Univ. Geog., book 28 (volume 1).
ACRE: A. D. 1799.--Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.
See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.
ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.
See KORKYRA.
ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.
"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered
practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the
Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the
Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,
during the administration of Pericles. ... On entering through
the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and
beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings
anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less
elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and
exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of
alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or
fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice
known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the
Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an
Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in
the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator
might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their
dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary
sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or
modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our
best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor
collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods
and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of
the arts."
J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.
"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the
Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,
surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,
and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of
which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one
great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the ...
sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of
Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on
the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.
This would not have been consonant either with the customs or
the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica
crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the
necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained
uninhabited. ... The western end of the Acropolis, which
furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one
hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow
that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to
fill up the space with a single building which should serve
the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a
suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and
sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the
Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in
Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,
surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. ... It may be
defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on
both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 8.
See, also, ATTICA.
ACT OF ABJURATION, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
ACT OF MEDIATION, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
ACT OF SECURITY.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
{8}
ACT RESCISSORY.
See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.
ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
Naval Battle of the Greeks.
A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
Peloponnesian War.
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 1.
ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
The Victory of Octavius.
See ROME: B. C. 31.
ACTS OF SUPREMACY.
See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.
ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.
ACULCO, Battle of (1810).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
ACZ, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.
ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.
ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).
In diplomatic service.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1796-1801.
ADAMS, John Quincy.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1829.
ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;
1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.
ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
ADEL.--ADALING.--ATHEL.
"The homestead of the original settler, his house,
farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the
share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the
northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;
the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the
owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified
also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.
Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the
same name."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3, section 24.
See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.
ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
ADELANTADOS.-ADELANTAMIENTOS.
"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts
[in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of
Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by
further conquests."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520.
ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.
ADIABENE.
A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of
country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was
originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with
Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary
kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was
seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently
held.
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, page 140.
ADIRONDACKS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.
ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ADITES, The.
"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in
the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their
progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, book 7, chapter 2.
See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.
ADJUTATORS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ADLIYAH, The.
See ISLAM.
ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.
ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.
ADOPTIONISM.
A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,
which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not
truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma
is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,
Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne
took active measures to suppress the heresy.
J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 12.
ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.
ADRIANOPLE.--HADRIANOPLE.
A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated
by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over
Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the
defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS
(VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the
capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).
It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878
(see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave
its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and
the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).
ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.
ADRUMETUM.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
ADUATUCI, The.
See BELGÆ.
ADULLAM, Cave of.
When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he
sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the
Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from
Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to
Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now
feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. ... Besides
these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some
of the original Canaanites--of whom the name of one at least
has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast
columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean
palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system
gathered round the hero of the coming age."
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish
Church, lecture 22.
ADULLAMITES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
{9}
ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).
This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.
C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 11.
ÆAKIDS (Æacids).
The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson
was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those
claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.
ÆDHILING.
See ETHEL.
ÆDILES, Roman.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
ÆDUI.--ARVERNI.--ALLOBROGES.
"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or
Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies
between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river
was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The
Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town
was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]
the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the
supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous
country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile
valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of
the Allier and the Loire. ... They were on friendly terms with
the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who
occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).
... In order to break the formidable combination of the
Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,
who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.
... A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier
between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their
new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and
kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which
the Romans practiced when it was useful."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.
See, also, GAULS.
Ægæ.
See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).
ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ÆGEAN, The.
"The Ægean, or White Sea, ... as distinguished from the
Euxine."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
page 413, and foot-note.
ÆGIALEA.--ÆGIALEANS.
The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
its inhabitants.
See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ÆGIKOREIS.
See PHYLÆ.
ÆGINA.
A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and
Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied
by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to
Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power
and commercial importance, and became for a time the most
brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian
war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the
Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the
allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they
offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians
thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to
interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages
to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See
GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great
extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor
with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence
to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and
in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking
possession of their discomfited rival.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 14.
Also in
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, volume 4, chapter 36.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.--Defeat
and subjugation.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
Their settlement at Thyrea.
See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.
The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they
entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was
signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city
having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was
reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings
of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,
chapter 8, section 2.
ÆGINETAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).
A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in
his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.
Thucydides, History, book 3, section 97.
ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
ÆLFRED.
See ALFRED.
ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.
The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.
See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.
"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of
which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. ...
enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,
or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law
prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the
assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for
watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was
held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 16.
ÆMILIAN WAY, The.
"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. ...
constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian
Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to
Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great
north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to
Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the
colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across
the Appenines to Arretium."
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.
ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.
{10}
ÆOLIANS, The.
"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according
to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to
obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into
three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. ... All
the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and
of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common
name of Æolians--a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was
incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among
which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be
assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the
two former races, though even these were scarcely in any
quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be
found a single original stock, to which others had merely been
attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples
assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is
recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is
found between the several members of this race as between
Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood
nearer to the former, others to the latter. ... A thorough and
careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that
the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main
races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,
while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater
number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."
G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 1, chapter 2.
In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,
appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is
represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were
Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and
Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,
Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be
distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,
as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and
presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them
to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes
even by defiance."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 6.
See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
ÆQUIANS, The.
See OSCANS; also LATIUM;
and ROME; B. C. 458.
ÆRARIANS.
Roman citizens who had no political rights.
See CENSORS, ROMAN.
ÆRARIUM, The.
See FISCUS.
ÆSOPUS INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.
"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the
Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,
whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the
Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They
worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol
the device of a wild boar. ... They often use clubs, iron
weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn
and other produce than might be expected from the general
indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and
are the only people who gather amber, which they call
glesum."--"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to
the north-east of the Vistula. ... The name still survives in
the form Estonia."
Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
with note.
See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.
ÆSYMNETÆ, An.
Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried
not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring
tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,
under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of
æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the
title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which
succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an
extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of
protector or dictator."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.
ÆTHEL.--ÆTHELING.
See ETHEL, and ADEL.
ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.
See ETHELBERT, etc.
ÆTOLIA.--ÆTOLIANS.
"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early
times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a
savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an
Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.
The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the
most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes
and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life
being preferred universally. ... It was not till the wars
which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians
formed a real political union, and became an important power
in Greece."
G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 3.
See also,
AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.
"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions
been written down in the shape of a formal document, would
have presented but few varieties of importance. The same
general form of government prevailed in both; each was
federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,
its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head
of all. The differences between the two are merely those
differences of detail which will always arise between any two
political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from
the other. ... If therefore federal states or democratic
states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or
strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should
see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral
characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political
conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some
faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political
conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in
which we know it best [last half of third and first half of
second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. ... The
counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to
mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political
aggrandisement."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 6.
The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in
continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and
they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their
agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it
was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle
with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,
B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its
nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 7-9.
ALSO IN C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66.
{11}
AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
Founding of Herat and Candahar.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
In the Syrian Empire.
See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
The Ghaznevide Empire.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
Conquest by Timour.
See Timour.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.
Conquest by Babar.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.
Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
Conquest by Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
His Conquests in India.
See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
English interference.
"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed
Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth
had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a
wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,
who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was
lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance
that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in
1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh
ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,
which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,
and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at
length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at
length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and
in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After
the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a
prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in
making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man
thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,
uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British
occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the
legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan
was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one
sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one
of the youngest. ... Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed
was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and
dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been
addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation
of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost
Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the
Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,
no longer truculent, but courteous. ... There was a fine
rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine
chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our
hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty
to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the
second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in
Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His
schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that
certain arrangements were entered into between him and the
Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's
part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian
Government replied that to afford him assistance would be
inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the
Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed
financially toward his undertaking by granting him four
months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a
scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,
but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a
successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on
Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in
extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,
and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed
Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his
artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the
south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the
Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the
Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part
availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of
British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,
he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by
a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had
crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded
Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,
1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his
lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of
the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other
independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was
soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of
disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia
which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered
in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly
undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says
Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger
entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to
Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,
which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without
definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious
man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the
Persian army began the siege of Herat. ... The Dost made no
concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,
in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for
assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the
Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations
with the western powers if he were given reason to expect
countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian
Government. ... The situation of Burnes in relation to the
Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a
Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose
credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if
that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to
Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took
small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes
that he cared for no connection except with the English, and
Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in
the sincerity of those declarations.
{12}
But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed
to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to
indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.
It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became
hopeless. ... The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his
promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to
obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,
and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the
Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian
minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit
at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been
discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about
the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which
Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,
connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his
official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and
garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to
deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since
he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had
gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the
character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he
had no design of obstructing the existing situation in
Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,
that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to
discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah
Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our
protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs
now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following
June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,
escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no
explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our
frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central
Asia--a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the
most arduous marching ground in the known world. ... Lord
William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the
project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley
regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks
and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of
infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic
sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to
settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march
into that country."
A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, chapter 1.
ALSO IN;
J. P. Ferrier, History of the Afghans, chapter 10-20.
Mohan Lal, Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, volume 1.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
The revolt at Cabul.
Horrors of the British retreat.
Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
Sale's defence of Jellalabad.
"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the
friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to
join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was
contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah
for the restoration of the banished house. The
expedition--which according to the original intention was to
have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of
Shah Soojah and the Sikhs--rapidly grew into an English
invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on
the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General
Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of
these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the
highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would
not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through
their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-
the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,
with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the
loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all
collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The
want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to
Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern
Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards
the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a
fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty
movements the English had left their battering train behind,
but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,
and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor
did the English army encounter any important resistance
subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,
and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo
Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah
Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the
fortress Palace of Cabul. ... For the moment the policy seemed
thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a
fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one
dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the
unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. ... Dost
Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English
envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family
to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was
there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both
the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he
had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a
victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their
policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that
the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their
successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.
For while the English officials were blindly congratulating
themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to
an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all
sides visible. ... The removal of the strong rule of the
Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the
other families and tribes. The whole country was full of
intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the
English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.
But they soon found that the hopes excited by these
negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had
bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be
disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did
not find that they derived any advantages from the
establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every
Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the
predominance of the English infidels.
{13}
But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of
sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in
spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the
people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion
that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold
upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived
himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a
portion of the English army, under General Sale, into
Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy
the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his
successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken
by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition
of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface
was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from
that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The
army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of
General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.
But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,
was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and
liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but
was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting
in the vigour and decision which his critical position was
likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English
Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had
persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,
and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul
and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great
conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every
important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening
of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was
held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be
made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning
an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir
Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,
and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's
army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The
evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and
rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at
once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's
house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.
Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which
marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this
crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of
the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative
security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far
too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an
entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on
almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness
of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored
within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at
some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was
made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time
onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible
supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.
The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy
and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some
flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of
helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might
even yet have been averted by a little firmness. ... But the
commander had already begun to despair, and before many days
had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.
Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances
but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as
well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide
the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar
Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the
beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern
mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the
insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent
chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he
promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if
a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.
... While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he
intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double
dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent
messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should
make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their
troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition
was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops
to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to
complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the
presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against
whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's
own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing
but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major
Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at
length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of
the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all
the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort
to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey
had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors
of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English
military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life
out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or
shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of
camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which
lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,
had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is
uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd--it can scarcely be
called an army--was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of
the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with
Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the
married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two
generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope
that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."
J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 4, pages 61-66.
{14}
"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.
Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before
very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to
lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling
remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass--a dark,
steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable
toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had
barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was
finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;
the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped
from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to
Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their
own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the
number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by
straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached
Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,
came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had
numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The
curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for
any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful
catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and
reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of
Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and
shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the
worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is
all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our
successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in
this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before
Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out
and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the
treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly
declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale
rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and
military commander with the knives at their throats.' General
Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold
this place on the part of Government until I receive its order
to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the
turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was
at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to
have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a
succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the
place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most
formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the
garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,
re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the
gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every
attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at
length, when it became certain that General Pollock was
forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they
determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out
of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and
completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly
fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad
[April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and
dispersed. ... Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we
had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne
of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon
after the departure of the British, ... and his body, stripped
of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a
ditch."
J. McCarthy, History of our own Times,
volume 1, chapter 11.
ALSO IN
J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.
G. R. Gleig, Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan.
Lady Sale, Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan.
Mohan Lal, Life of Dost Mohammed,
chapters 15-18 (volume 2).
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
The British return to Cabul.
Restoration of Dost Mahomed.
It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain
permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to
advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to
do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at
Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one
writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be
cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of
the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood
which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet
pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for
two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now
the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other
leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the
British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and
defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After
one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he
could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their
mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on
his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,
after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he
captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been
destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command
of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been
taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,
the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed
the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as
it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,
brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first
considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of
Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington
called it 'The Song of Triumph.' ... This proclamation, put
forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really
an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an
insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was
gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple
of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are
believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying
neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum
at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni
and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived
on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English
prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),
who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were
brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.
General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not
now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar
in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and
Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into
India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent
back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.
{15}
Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. ... The war
being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son
of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when
his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position
that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly
afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom
we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in
India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as
king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which
he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,
when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,
and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur
to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab
forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly
terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a
friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power
would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his
kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we
declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the
advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian
encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short
time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between
England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims
over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained
independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed
attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,
including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This
was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days
after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere
Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of
Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the
Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,
asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,
however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of
'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a
neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was
at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had
he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would
have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he
was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold
acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William
Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000
muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded
that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a
friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers
revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government
that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country
which he brought under his power. However, after various
changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two
brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,
Abdurrahman."
P. F. Walker, Afghanistan, pages 45-51.
ALSO IN
J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.
G. B. Malleson, History of Afghanistan, chapters 11.
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
The second war with the English and its causes.
The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle
of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice
royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord
Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly
inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the
dynastic quarrels of the Afghans ... and in attempting to
cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and
arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. ... Lord
Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his
successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in
1869. ... Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He
refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge
himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he
promised that he would not press for the admission of any
English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return
expected by England for this attitude of friendly
non-interference was that every other foreign state, and
especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly
or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our
interests were so closely involved. ... But a different view
was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was
supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir
Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as
contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them
desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,
Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the
Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of
Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.
In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir
Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was
ably maintained. ... A Viceroy whose views were more in
accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to
be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord
Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving
effect to the new policy. He was instructed. ... to continue
payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing
dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of
unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance
of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in
exchange for these advantages. ... Lord Lawrence and those who
thought with him in England prophesied from the first the
disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of
the Afghans. ... The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English
Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common
interest to the two Governments, was calculated ... to excite
feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere
Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. ...
Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and
consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and
Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. ... The English Commissioner was
instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of
the Treaty was the admission of an English representative
within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request
on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand
proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy
formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.
{16}
Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave
him to understand that the English would proceed to secure
their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew
his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the
two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,
information reached India that a Russian mission had been
received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of
the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war
with Russia. ... As the despatch of a mission from Russia was
contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception
under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord
Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand
the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his
intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer
selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him
forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as
it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of
course the mission was not admitted. ... An outcry was raised
both in England and in India. ... Troops were hastily
collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was
thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier
at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the
formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing
aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of
England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct
territorial aggression. ... As had been foreseen by all
parties from the first, the English armies were entirely
successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. ... By the
close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the
Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in
January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the
resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken
to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was
drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as
regent. ... Yakoob readily granted the English demands,
consenting to place his foreign relations under British
control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably
more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the
rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He
received in exchange a promise of support by the British
Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the
conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley
withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to
establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in
July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and
eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad
story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and
scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious
uniformity--the English Resident with his little garrison
trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan
mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself
respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,
the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save
their hatred of English interference, the people seething with
anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the
Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack
upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]
after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his
entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the
previous war was avoided. The English troops which were
withdrawn from the country were still within reach. ... About
the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the
Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On
the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at
Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make
his formal entry into the city of Cabul. ... The Ameer was
deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the
people required under pain of death, and the country scoured
to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late
outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of
retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the
English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was
cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of
some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.
... A new and formidable personage ... now made his appearance
on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the
late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had
sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported
by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take
place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to
20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. ... It was
thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and
southern province. ... The policy thus declared was carried
out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the
same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the
north signs were visible that the only possible successor to
the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. ... The Bengal army
under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,
suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the
Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The
first part of the programme was carried out. ... The second
part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious
disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the
withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. ...
Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's
friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to
accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,
rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,
and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of
June [1880] his army started. ... But before the end of June
Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would
be assaulted. ... General Burrows found it necessary to fall back
to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called
Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of
the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the
position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th
of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of
this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,
numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously
defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,
about half the English troops returned to Candahar.
{17}
General Primrose, who was in command, had no
choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,
and wait till he should be rescued. ... The troops at Cabul
were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster
reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army
under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered
city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry
out the intended withdrawal. ... With about 10,000 fighting
men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a
successful issue his remarkable enterprise, ... falling upon
the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short
distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the
forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British
force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively
refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent
occupation. ... The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob
continued for a while, and until it was over the English
troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been
several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]
occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the
evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally
accepted as Ameer."
J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages
534-544.
ALSO IN
A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, part 2.
Duke of Argyll, The Afghan Question from 1841 to
1878.
G. B. Malleson, The Russo-Afghan Question.
----------AFGHANISTAN: End----------
AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.
See LIBYANS.
AFRICA: The Roman Province.
"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had
doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman
Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian
inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the
fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,
all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the
developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim
of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of
North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. ... The
arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite
after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes
as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman
government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,
and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the
kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.
We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman
subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it
like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia
as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of
the native governments. ... As for the previous rulers, so
also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a
limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial
supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or
taking back of the frontier in Africa. ... The former
territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier
kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,
as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until
the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name
[Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the
river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well
as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. ...
Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. ... The
Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the
Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed
it; but ... probably the whole south as far as the great
desert passed as imperial land."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 13.
See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.
AFRICA: The Mediæval City.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
AFRICA:
Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
and 908-1171;
also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
and SUDAN.
AFRICA:
Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
The rounding of the Cape.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.
AFRICA:
Dutch and English Colonization.
See SOUTH AFRICA.
AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
Settlement of Sierra Leone.
See SIERRA LEONE.
AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
The founding of Liberia.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.
AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
Partition of the interior between European Powers.
"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin
Conference of 1884--85 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that
Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely
considered. ... The founding of the Congo Independent State
was probably the most important result of the Conference. ...
Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,
Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to
their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.
... The compromise ... arrived at placed the Mission Station
of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The
frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of
Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from
the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,
constituted by a royal charter, ... "was given administrative
powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions
thereby placed under British protection ... apart from the Oil
Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,
embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern
frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories
of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its
confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany
and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and
action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and
in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German
sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.
... At present it allows the French Congo territories to
expand along the western bank of the M'bangi ... provided no
other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in
which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the
conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On
the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention
by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks
of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier
in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit
of the basin of the Casini.
{18}
On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which
France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left
to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for
German Colonization--Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count
Pfeil--quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,
Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were
conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters ... armed
with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On
the 27th February, the day following the signature of the
General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,
or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German
Colonization the territories ... acquired for them through Dr.
Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was
proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon
the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles
knew no bounds. ... Prior to 1884, the continental lands
facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British
influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and
the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of
the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and
the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty
of the Sultan. ... Still, Great Britain had no territorial
claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally
protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no
effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German
Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and
the British and German Governments arranged questions between
them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,
which was afterwards superseded by the more definite
Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In
April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization
were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with
Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took
over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of
Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal
charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an
enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently
the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series
of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,
whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over
vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and
Cape Frio. ... It was useless for the Cape colonists to
protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to
the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. ... On 3rd
August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa
was founded, and .... received the Imperial sanction for its
incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was
formed--the German West-Africa Company--and the
administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial
Commissioner. ... The intrusion of Germany into South-West
Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the
extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.
Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer
insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had
adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,
having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its
territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was
absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was
added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.
Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.
By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain
acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the
early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over
the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a
British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country
bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions
in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,
and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at
this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having
obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the
British South Africa Company, ... On the 29th October 1889,
the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.
It was declared in this charter that the principal field of
the operations of the British South African Company shall be
the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other
boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land
was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great
Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the
continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over
the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over
Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now
to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took
formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of
Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from
Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of
Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of
King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian
troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of
Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,
except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the
result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th
September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and
its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and
Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,
Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of
Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has
practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no
hold over Abyssinia. ... Italy has also succeeded in
establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties
concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh
(about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North
latitude)--a distance of 450 miles--were placed under Italian
protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her
Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. ... The
British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now
extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute
(43° 15' East longitude). ... The activity of France in her
Senegambian province, ... during the last hundred years ...
has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her
territory. ... The French have established a claim over the
country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.
{19}
A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra
Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at
Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal
withdrew all rights over Dehomé. ... Recently, a French sphere
of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan
regions between Algeria and Senegambia. ... Declarations were
exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]
with the following results: France became a consenting party
to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great
Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over
Madagascar. ... And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of
influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean
possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on
Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere
of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs
to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of
July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main
provisions the following definitions of territory: "The
Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention
of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria
Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to
the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the
western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to
be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro
within the British sphere. ... Treaties in that district were
made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.
Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin
Pasha. ... (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of
influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally
drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence
it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores
of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River
Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was
continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the
Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern
frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River
and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of
influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of
Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile
watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her
Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on
the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the
islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the
Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south
latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line
was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give
Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)
The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony
was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger
Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade
zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as
applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and
Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the
dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal
zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,
however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have
since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany
within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.
Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was
ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,
1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain
acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion
of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the
Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted
passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the
confines of the Congo Independent State and German East
Africa. ... Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower
Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo
Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake
Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the
South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West
Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her
provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo
Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. ... On
May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an
end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent
State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the
country was equally divided between the disputants. ... Lord
Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very
wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by
the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of
goods through territories in which two or more powers are
indirectly interested."
A. S. White, The Development of Africa, Second Ed.,
Revised., 1892.
ALSO IN:
J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 12-23.
See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.
AFRICA: The inhabiting races.
The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in
number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,
stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who
comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs
(with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between
Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole
South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in
that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include
with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and
Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are
occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including
Abyssinians and Gallas.
A. H. Keane, The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:
Africa, appendix).
ALSO IN:
R. Brown, The Races of Mankind, volume 2-3.
R. N. Cust, Sketch of the Modern Languages of
Africa.
See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.
----------AFRICA: End----------
AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.
AGADE.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.
AGAS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.
AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
AGE OF STONE.--AGE OF BRONZE, &c.
See STONE AGE.
{20}
AGELA.--AGELATAS.
The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly
trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of
which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the
Agelatas.
G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2.
AGEMA, The.
The royal escort of Alexander the Great.
AGEN, Origin of.
See NITIOBRIGES.
AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.
See SENONES.
AGER PUBLICUS.
"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her
early history. ... Large tracts of country became Roman land,
the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager
publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this
land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which
it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most
curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. ... That
part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor
given remained public property, and it was occupied, according
to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a
Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this
occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took
what he could, and more than he could use profitably. ... We
should be more inclined to believe that this public land was
occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;
but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.
There was no survey made of the public land which was from
time to time acquired, but there were certainly general
boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had
become public property. The lands which were sold and given
were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. ... There
is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were
originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,
that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,
were due to the state."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 11.
AGGER.
See CASTRA.
AGGRAVIADOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.
AGHLABITE DYNASTY.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.
AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.
AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
AGINNUM.--Modern Agen.
See NITIOBRIGES.
AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
AGNATI.--AGNATIC.
See GENS, ROMAN.
AGNIERS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.
AGOGE, The.
The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the
ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the
young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.
G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, part 3, chapter 1.
AGORA, The.
The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the
centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even
earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with
the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it
generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of
the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest
part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of
commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here
even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,
for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the
oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive
games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,
both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and
states was carried on; from here started the processions which
continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,
though locally separated. Although originally all public
transactions were carried on in these market-places, special
local arrangements for contracting public business soon became
necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently
rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching
the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most
likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of
Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between
the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of
Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of
Athenian commerce. ... The description by Vitruvius of an
agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of
post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular
in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The
numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of
marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for
walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all
marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the
remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."
E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26.
In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was
called the Agora.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 20.
AGRÆI, The.
See AKARNANIANS.
AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.
"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman
laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these
laws all land was declared common property, and that at
certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and
made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It
is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences
of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known
to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were
thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian
laws were not private property, but the property of the state.
They were, originally, those public lands which had been the
domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any
City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an
Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in
whole or in part."
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8.
See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.
{21}
AGRI DECUMATES, The.
"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a
triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the
confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an
enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and
presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river
to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most
part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman
defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an
enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of
Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many
of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original
inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to
have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The
intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered
in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the
district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri
Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially
connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt
made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much
later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of
Augustus]."
C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 36..
"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
Decumates of the Roman writers."
R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.
See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.
AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
AGRIGENTUM.
Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek
colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older
colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid
cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified
by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious
tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was
destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by
Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and
grandeur.
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 3.
See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.
Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.
See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.
See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.
AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
AIGINA.
See ÆGINA.
AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
AIGUILLON, Siege of.
A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An
English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,
held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of
the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.
J. Froissart, Chronicles, volume 1, book 1, chapter 120.
AIX, Origin of.
See SALYES.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:
The Capital of Charlemagne.
The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of
Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the
French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of
the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome
arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia--palaces,
gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,--for the
erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid
under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.
It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there
that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that
foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch
perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and
the improvement of music."
P. Godwin, History of France:
Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 17.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
Succession (1748).
The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
influence of England and Holland ... forced the peace upon
Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
Cape Breton. ... The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
remained with the Genoese.
{22}
For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
[the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
vexed questions had been set at rest. ... Of all the ambitious
projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
Frederick alone was substantially realized."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3.
"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin
and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many
conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,
it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross
inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned
to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all
endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the
electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most
deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not
only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost
its own patrimonial possessions. ... The most trying problem
is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of
Hungary [Maria Theresa]. ... The verdict of history, as
expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of
writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice
of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was
formed against her."
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1745-1756, chapter 2.
ALSO IN
W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 30.
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 108 (volume 3).
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.
"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least
important, but at the same time one of the most estimable
peoples in Greece ... our knowledge is only fragmentary. The
boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the
people spoken of as a political whole. ... Thucydides speaks,
by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an
institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,
in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for
judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the
supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not
in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own
time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of
Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already
held there. ... Of the constitution of the League we know but
little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and
probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been
held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had
entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in
Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General
with high authority. ... The existence of coins bearing the
name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity
enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of
particular cities also occur."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,
chapter 4, section 1.
AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).
The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the
ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours
in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between
the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:
they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the
Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with
the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,
sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and
half-Epirotic,--like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.
Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were
subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in
unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of
plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be
unarmed. ... Notwithstanding this state of disunion and
insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose
political league among themselves. ... The Akarnanians appear
to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical
ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the
Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the
Grecian heroes,--Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and
Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and
other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to
be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the
Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,
and so they seem to have continued with little alteration
until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of
them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter
enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact
of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian
accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in
socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that
this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the
Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the
Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,--a people the
most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the
Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in
marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the
Akarnanian character."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24.
AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.
AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
AKKAD.--AKKADIANS.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
AKKARON.
See PHILISTINES.
AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.
See KORKYRA.
ALABAMA:
The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;
CHEROKEES.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
{23}
ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
French occupation and first settlement.
The founding of Mobile.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
Partly embraced in West Florida.
See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
Partly in dispute with Spain.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.
See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
Organized as a Territory.
Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.
"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi
Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,
thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a
Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as
they now exist. ... By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress
authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form
a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed
into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same
footing as the original States.' ... The joint resolution of
congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by
President Monroe, December 14, 1819."
W. Brewer, Alabama, chapter 5.
ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
General Mitchell's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL--MAY: ALABAMA).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
The Battle of Mobile Bay.
Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864(AUGUST: ALABAMA).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
The Fall of Mobile.
Wilson's Raid.
End of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------ALABAMA: End----------
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
In their Origin.
The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
Precursors of the Alabama.
The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially
commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the
government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the
progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a
proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,
1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those
depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property
belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and
notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the
Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had
abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned
war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a
side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was
armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was
short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the
Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of
the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet
steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more
active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and
twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the
blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of
June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran
among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon
made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was
everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great
favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical
operations. She became the terror of the American merchant
service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent
out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at
the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British
guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.
Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her
piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of
the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial
aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,
especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators
determined to procure from those friends some powerful
piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and
construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a
ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British
Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,
in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate
ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was
the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.
Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well
satisfied from information received that she was designed for
the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British
government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,
1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed
and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to
Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off
Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The
blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.
Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense
to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed
the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few
minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of
his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his
seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed
from the service without a hearing--an act which subsequent
events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December
the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical
cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. ... The name
of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."
B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Civil War,
volume 2, chapter 21.
{24}
The fate of the Florida is related below--A. D. 1862-1865.
R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 9-26.
ALSO IN
J. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
chapter 30-31 (volume 2).
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
The Alabama, her career and her fate.
"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the
Confederates] ... is thus described by Semmes, her commander:
'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet
in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and
coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was
barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to
carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. ... Her
engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an
apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the
fresh water that her crew might require. ... Her armament
consisted of eight guns.' ... The Alabama was built and, from
the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'
The contract for her construction was signed by Captain
Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' ...
On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of
the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,
and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the
month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The
purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was
notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an
object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at
that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence
on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. ... Early
in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the
British authorities--a point maintained throughout the
struggle--that they would originate nothing themselves for
the maintenance and performance of their international duties,
and that they would listen to no representations from the
officials of the United States which did not furnish technical
evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign
Enlistment Act. ... At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the
United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired
proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of
affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance
with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl
Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by
the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a
request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to
be ready for sea and might leave any hour. ... It ... appears
that notwithstanding this official information from the
Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers
until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so
clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under
these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in
the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion
of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her
Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the
Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool
saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and
left the port this morning.' ... After leaving the dock she
proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on
board, and also Bullock. ... The 290 slowly steamed on to
Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all
that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort
was made to seize her. ... When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay
her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the
Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only
stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for
Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of
August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail
was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the
'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six
guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'
Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important
cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed
discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain
Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,
whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in
Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes
and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There
were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some
stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a
part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in
transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was
not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was
hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went
back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under
that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"
The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151).
The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
westward, and making several captures, she approached within
200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
vessel of the enemy. ... But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
their tonnage was about the same."
E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause, pages 549.
Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer
Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on
the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June
19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department
that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off
this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from
Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,
as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or
two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of
Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At
twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering
towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,
we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was
attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to
and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,
within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or
three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action
continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and
round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the
expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about
twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In
a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following
particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the
Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the
former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the
object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow
of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this
point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was
not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,
shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,
and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they
had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats
would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats
not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the
Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in
his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the
Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,
when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the
Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,
and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,
and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost
immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was
actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from
shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and
others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as
comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the
Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the
commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an
act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means
to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work
rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was
mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and
others, and also the very officer who had come on board to
surrender."--In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the
following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated
she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious
damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken
effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and
rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having
been wounded. ... The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173
projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'
accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded
18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the
coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine
room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken
effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by
explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."
Rebellion Record, volume 9, pages 221-225.
ALSO IN
J. R. Soley, The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in
the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 7.
J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne, The
Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).
R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 29-55.
J. D. Bullock, Secret Service of the Confederate States
in Europe, volume 1, chapter 5.
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
Other Confederate cruisers.
"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to
prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became
quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included
the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which
made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which
made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was
captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by
a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],
in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the
United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the
restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was
captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and
sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was
contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the
Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British
shipyards."
R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession,
chapter 24.
{26}
The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the
Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship--the Sea King--built
for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,
Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned
(October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the
Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of
which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her
appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she
fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of
one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were
captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21
were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at
upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred ...
two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of
existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of
hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of
the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;
yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way
southward he received information, August 2d, of the final
collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and
surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered
her to the United States.
J. R. Soley, The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and
Leaders, volume 4).
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
against Great Britain.
First stages of the Negotiation.
The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.
"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two
Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward
Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show ... what was intended by
these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used
on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence
between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the
20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape
of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under
instructions from the Government of the United States. In this
note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,
and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the
directions which I have received from my Government to solicit
redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'
... Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,
1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing
out of the acts of the Alabama. ... As new losses from time to
time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were
brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were
lodged with the national and individual claims already
preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved
was by common consent deferred. ... The fact that the first
claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains
how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all
the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama
claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually
over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl
Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of
American vessels transferred to the British flag during the
war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing
from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is
multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going
on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation
with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the
ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as
vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the
effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' ... He
stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing
that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government
of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord
Russell ... said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties
of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured
by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United
States have sustained. ... Referring to the offer of
arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord
Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government
must decline either to make reparation and compensation for
the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to
any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the
negotiations between the two Governments. ... In the summer of
1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord
Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the
place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give
an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the
rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared
to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,
should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might
possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by
instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call
Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'
to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for
damages which were suffered by them during the period of the
civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United
States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is
neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and
unconciliatory toward Great Britain. ... Lord Stanley met this
overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which
he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a
reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,
and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which
the arbitration shall apply.' ... As the first result of these
negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson
convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.
It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United
States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the
14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the
Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.
Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States
Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided
for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction
over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States
upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the
so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of
subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the
United States which may have been presented to either
government for its interposition with the other since the 26th
July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The
Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was
rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made
provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted
of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more
extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."
The Argument of the United States delivered to the
Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division
13, section 2.
{27}
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
Renewed Negotiations.
Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.
The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon
treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President
Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of
Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take
into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;
and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign
Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw
cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the
British Government with the United States, and the
inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in
Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington
a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John
Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening
negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and
terms acceptable to Great Britain. ... Sir John Rose found the
United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of
good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,
on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through
Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American
Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold
its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle
the various pending questions between the two Governments
affecting the British possessions in North America. To this
overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with
pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the
United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners
should be extended to other differences,--that is to say, to
include the differences growing out of incidents of the late
Civil War. ... The British Government promptly accepted this
proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The
joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,
by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of
proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at
New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's
suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without
waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by
special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:
"On the part of the United States were five persons,--Hamilton
Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood
Hoar, and George H. Williams,--eminently fit representatives
of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of
the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey
and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford
Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of
Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected
British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the
able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in
revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any
other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of
Professor Montague Bernard. ... In the face of many
difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,
completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which
received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."
C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington,
pages 18-20, and 11-13.
ALSO IN
A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh, chapter 12 (volume 2).
A. Badeau, Grant in Peace, chapter 25.
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.
The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,
and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the
17th day of the following June, set forth its principal
agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas
differences have arisen between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still
exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several
vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has
authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's
Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of
the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the
depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to
remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the
United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such
claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's
Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the
said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid
vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall
be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of
five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the
United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;
His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one;
the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to
name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be
requested to name one. ... The Arbitrators shall meet at
Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after
they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and
carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be
laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United
States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions
considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall
be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the
high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend
the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all
matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5
of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall
submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the
matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed
by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the
high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to
the case, and by such principles of international law not
inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to
have been applicable to the case:
{28}
A neutral Government is bound--First, to use due diligence to
prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its
jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to
believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a
Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like
diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of
any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such
vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,
within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to
permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports
or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,
or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military
supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to
exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to
all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation
of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty
has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the
foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international
law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned
in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in
order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory
provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the
questions between the two countries arising out of those
claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to
bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,
relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and
provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and
commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any
liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a
sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to
25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in
addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the
convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on
certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein
defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty
for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice
given by either party of its wish to terminate the
arrangement] ... to take fish of every kind, except shell
fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours
and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of
the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being
restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to
land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also
upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are
hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19
secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of
fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the
United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.
Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that
were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first
article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for
the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each
country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the
inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides
that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens
of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of
greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of
this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this
assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
appointed to determine ... the amount of any compensation
which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of
the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,
one by the President of the United States, one by Her
Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her
Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three
months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian
Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and
their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles
24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal
privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the
other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,
Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,
St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the
transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one
country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32
extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to
Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary
laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of
Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date
of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration
of two years after either of the two high contracting parties
shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate
the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for
submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the
Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between
Vancouver's Island and the continent)--to complete the
settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.
Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other
Powers (ed. of 1889), pages 478-493.
ALSO IN
C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, appendix
{29}
ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.
"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and
with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The
United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great
Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy
named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss
Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,
the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed
Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great
Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the
case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,
Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis
being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United
States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft
Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,
by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing
of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of
April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the
convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion
should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next
day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,
subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be
occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the
15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were
continued until the 14th of September following, when the
decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the
Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander
Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the
British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the
performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the
cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those
vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her
departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that
date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,
the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the
Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the
duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels
called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,
and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that
they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of
evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the
indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit
of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the
judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the
general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"
and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any
sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision
put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective
earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following
language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable
compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is
necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,
and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net
freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow
interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with
the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is
preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in
gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for
further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,
as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,
making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII
of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,
awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five
hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid
by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of
all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,
conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called
"indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential
losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the
Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were
dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the
Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a
statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not
constitute, upon the principles of international law
applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of
compensation or computation of damages between nations." This
declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of
the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington.
ALSO IN
F. Wharton, Digest of the International Law of
the U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3).
----------ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End----------
ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).
See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
ALAMANNI.
See ALEMANNI.
ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.
The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of
the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its
name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."
See ASSASSINS.
ALANS, OR ALANI, The.
"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.
C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and
again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A
similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern
Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca
places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two
bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the
other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of
the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the
successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the
ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus
and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. ... The result
seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and
harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a
vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own
country."
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 17.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 6, note H.
"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the
Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched
their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,
at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."
J. C. L. Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 3.
{30}
ALANS: A. D. 376.
Conquest by the Huns.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
Final Invasion of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
Settlement in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
ALANS: A. D. 429.
With the Vandals in Africa.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
ALANS: A. D. 451.
At the Battle of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
----------ALANS: End----------
ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).
See ALMOHADES.
ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
and ROME: A. D. 408-410.
ALARODIANS.--IBERIANS.--COLCHIANS.
"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires ... are
almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic
name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere
variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable
in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to
connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of
the Inscriptions. ... The name of Ararat is constantly used in
Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a
particular mountain. ... The connexion ... of Urarda with the
Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the
inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian
king ... ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or
Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the
mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians
were refugees of a later period driven northward by the
growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,
is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the
tenor of the inscriptions."
H. C. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix 3.
"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds
closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was
[anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus
Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians
of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,
probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the
neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must
be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other
side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as
Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and
fertility, were the Colchians,--dependents, but not exactly
subjects, of Persia."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.
ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
Purchase by the United States.
As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between
the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the
sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more
than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found
difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected
with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were
disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite
negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian
minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he
received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the
President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the
cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,
privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any
associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,
Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was
returned, stating that the minister believed himself
authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final
instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On
the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to
the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of
$7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the
treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or
negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,
1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of
the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal
transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau
taking possession in the name of the Government of the United
States.
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 28,
chapter 28.
ALSO IN
W. H. Dall, Alaska and its Resources, part 2, chapter 2.
For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
ALATOONA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
ALBA.
Alban Mount.
"Cantons ... having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and
including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
political unities with which Italian history begins. At what
period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in
Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a
matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban
range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to
settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the
most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the
new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above
Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the
Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was
universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,
and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old
Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very
ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and
Tusculum. ... All these cantons were in primitive times
politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its
prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the
assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship
based on community of descent and of language not only
pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an
important religious and political institution--the perpetual
league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency
belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as
well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay
the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton
of Alba. ... The communities entitled to participate in the
league were in the beginning thirty. ... The rendezvous of
this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the
similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'
(feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day
annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an
ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to
the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
{31}
ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
ALBAIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ALBAN, Kingdom of.
See ALBION;
also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ALBANI, The.
See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
ALBANIANS: Ancient.
See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.
ALBANIANS: Mediæval.
"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the
bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first
half of the seventh century], we may ... venture to date the
earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the
Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now
called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of
the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more
particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an
important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of
the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece
with the Hellenic race can be found in history. ... It seems
very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation
without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition,
like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the
singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."
G. Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.
ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.
"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of
Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other
petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign,
and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages
for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose
name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength
and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the
Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on
him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The
young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits
under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of
Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died,
Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son
constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over
this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by
Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to
escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his
patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief
secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at
his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish
commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver
that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the
Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened
to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance
and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith,
and declared his intention of defending the creed of his
forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native
land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner
and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly
twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power
of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and
his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."
Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 4.
"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian
territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the
Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones
enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet
their involuntary reverence for his valour. ... His infant son
was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were
invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues
to flow in the noblest families of the realm."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 67.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN
A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, sections 11-25.
ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.
Conquests by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------ALBANIANS: End----------
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623.
The first Settlement.
In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had
established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a
trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle
Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the
present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was
carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a
more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected
on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany.
That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort
Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,'
after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son.
As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of
bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians
[Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the
Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa
Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship ... and
desired that they might come and have a constant free trade
with them, which was concluded upon.'"
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of N. Y., volume 1,
pages 55 and 151.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.-
Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
Occupied and named by the English.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
Again occupied by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
----------ALBANY, NEW YORK: End----------
ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
ALBANY REGENCY, The.
See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.
ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH
CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).
ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
{32}
ALBERT,
King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
Albert I., Duke of Austria and
King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.
ALBERTA, The District of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
ALBICI, The.
A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia
(Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in
the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend
their city against him.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 4.
ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.
"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the
vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic,
half rationalistic theory of Christianity, ... appears almost
suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible
power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and
on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France,
in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees.
... The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France.
Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring
insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were,
at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the
Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in
some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain,
absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal
revolt from Latin Christianity. ... In no [other] European
country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so
deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church
more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 9, chapter 8.
"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received
the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where
the agents of the church who came to combat them found them
mostly to abound,--the district around the town of Alba, or
Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the
commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general
denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended
together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a
predominant element among the people thus designated."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, 5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3.
"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and
Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy,
the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their
errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but
the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They
received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by
the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are
called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of
Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran,
Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also
held that the evil spirit created all visible things."
Johannes Baptist Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.
https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo
"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless
debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on
the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so
zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill
founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with
the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were
apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of
domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and
the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not
seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings,
and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries,
the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were
accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would
have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be
meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter
Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of
Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of
dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether
calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not
as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious
exaggeration."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7.
ALSO IN L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times.
See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
The First Crusade.
"Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
those which had already elevated him to almost universal
dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
{33}
and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."
E. Smedley, History of France, chapter 4.
ALSO IN
J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against
the Albigenses, chapter 1.
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 9, chapter 8.
J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2,
epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3
https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo.
See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
The Second Crusade.
"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed
than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism
of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux.
Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part
of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording
shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. ...
The unhappy Raymond was ... again excommunicated from the
Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the
champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn
that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of
Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of
heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted
land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each
successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may
not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics,
or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were
compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning
faggots. ... At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to
the city of Toulouse. ... Throwing himself into the place,
Raymond ... succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It
was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a
fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of
1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of
Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of
Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and
their united forces came into communication with each other at
Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from
Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213],
at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by
seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military
array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and
decisive. ... Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army,
deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of
the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the
sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse
immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of
Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently
held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and
twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged
as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other
counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7.
ALSO IN
J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of Crusades against the
Albigenses, chapter 2.
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
The Renewed Crusades.
Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
Pacification of Languedoc.
"The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
existence. ... Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
[Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
Languedoc. ... All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
Blanche of Castile.
{34}
"The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
Berenger, count of Provence."
E. E. Crowe, History of France, volume 1, chapter 2-3.
"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the
French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse
and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of
Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne,
Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to
the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the
crown fifty years later. ... The name of Toulouse, except as
the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new
acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name
of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and
Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they
became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the
French kingdom."
E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 9.
The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.
"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These
supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France.
The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with
calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates
transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the
slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify
nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long
succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more
numerous than had ever before been brought together in
European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know
that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and
unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay
nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the
sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at
their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the
merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the
landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and
castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been
massacred. ... Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the
European world had never mourned over a national disaster so
wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7.
----------ALBIGENSES: End----------
ALBION.
"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island
[Britain] is that of Albion. ... There is, however, another
allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back,
though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the
story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows
of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked
by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy.
Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were
Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation,
restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing,
undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the
sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them
sons of Neptune or the sea-god. ... Even in the time of Pliny,
Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with
Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts
themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they
are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word
in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the
kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be
a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of
it. ... It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that
has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which
it once applied."
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.
ALSO IN E. Guest, Origines Celticae, chapter 1.
See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ALBIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Elbe.
ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.
ALCALDE.--ALGUAZIL.--CORREGIDOR.
"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or
governor. ... Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the
law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and
criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the
Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii.
331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding
the two offices. ... An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable
or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and
criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius')
and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical
government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes.
ALCANIZ, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).
See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.
{35}
ALCANTARA, Knights of.
"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of
Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,'
A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the
military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don
Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of
choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence
they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the
Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the
territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of
the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who
encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the
neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for
a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they
applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy
the place: that permission was readily granted: with his
assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers
erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by
other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire
fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the
foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St.
Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service
alike to king and church."
S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3,
section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.
ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).
See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.
ALCIBIADES, The career of.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407;
and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.
ALCLYDE.
Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the
victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock
in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman
town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English
for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan,
or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the
slightly modified form of Dumbarton. ... Alclyde was more than
once destroyed by the Northmen."
J. Rhys; Celtic Britain, chapter 4.
See, also, CUMBRIA.
ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.
See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
ALDIE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).
ALDINE PRESS, The.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
ALEMANNI, OR ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.
Origin and first appearance.
"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe
war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was
waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is
named, which we here meet for the first time--the Alamanni.
Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a
little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the
appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as
well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes
comprehended under this name stand forth--more than is the
case among the other great Germanic peoples--in their separate
character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other
Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is
not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the
new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by
the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the
mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in
equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the
main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to
the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is
not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times
dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further
mention after the end of the second century, furnished a
strong contingent to the Alamanni."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.
"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name
from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat
exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,
who quotes Asinius Quadratus. ... Notwithstanding this, I
think it is an open question, whether the name may not have
been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of
Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic
allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,--parts of the Decumates
Agri--parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,
or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,
a name so German as to have given the present French and
Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a
population other than Germanic. I know the apparently
paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in
the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'
by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the
'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner
or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and
'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).--Grimm, ii.
628.--Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that
the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in
Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other
words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in
'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of
importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the
parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time
of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.
Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those
Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,
indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits
that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no
tangible difference can be found."
R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 11.
ALSO IN T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1.
See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
Invasion of Gaul and Italy.
The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire ...
increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of
Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of
Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered
the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni
penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into
the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and
displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight
of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger
rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.
Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars--Valerian
in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,
succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force
which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany
laden with spoil."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{36}
ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
Invasion of Italy.
Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the
reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from
the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,
when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of
the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the
Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these
last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the
Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading
havoc as they went. It was only after three great
battles,--one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost
beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was
defeated), and a third near Pavia,--that the Germanic
invaders were destroyed.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
Repulse by Julian.
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
Invasion of Gaul.
The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread
ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great
spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the
Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman
forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian
auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted
energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the
invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them
back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,
the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a
memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he
strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,
fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,
the Burgundians, which weakened both.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
Defeat by Gratian.
On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to
lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of
his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the
Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly
recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and
encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near
Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The
Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than
5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.
Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his
troublesome neighbors in their own country.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
Overthrow by the Franks.
"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that
career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any
intermission until the death of their warrior king. The
Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on
the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,
had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into
collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of
Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and
defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood
of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then
established a considerable number of his Franks in the
territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are
found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."
V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2.
"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts
of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and
forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be
overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat
overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he
bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a
Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic
faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,
whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who
art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who
trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on
my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me
from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in
Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the
fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they
turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was
slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its
over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at
Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.
"In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or
504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the
Alamanni. ... Clovis moved his army into their territories and
won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that
of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms
as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the
Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,
the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was
taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district
received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,
or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.
The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and
dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of
Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here
they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;
and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to
the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.
... Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and
Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new
Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus
Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
ALSO IN
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 11.
See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank Dominion.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
Final subjection to the Franks.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
{37}
ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.
Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was
recovered by the Byzantines in 969.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
Destruction by the Mongols.
The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu
Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the
Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of
1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege
of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and
slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered
with corpses. ... It is said that 100,000 women and children
were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its
mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus
submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,
the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great
Khan called him to the East.
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, pages 209-211.
ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
Sack and Massacre by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).
See ITALY: A. D. 1174--1183.
ALEUTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.
ALEXANDER
ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
Conquests and Empire.
See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.
Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.
Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.--Abduction and Abdication.
See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886..
Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825..
Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.
Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.
Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.
Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214--1249..
Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.
Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.
Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.
Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254--1261.
Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410
(elected by the Council of Pisa).
Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.
Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.
Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.
Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.
ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.
The Founding of the City.
"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the
little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye
of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a
great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships
could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour
roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was
needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The
site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of
land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake
Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,
which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by
the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel
with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake
Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,
the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was
above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet
broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of
the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the
mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which
Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.
The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but
the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a
Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on
the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The
situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best
Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port
connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural
emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,
because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for
steamships of an unbroken sea route."
R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12.--
See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
and EGYPT: B. C. 332.
ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
Greatness and splendor of the City.
Its Commerce.
Its Libraries.
Its Museum.
Its Schools.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the
throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it
in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded
by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy
Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It
was the first of those new foundations which are a marked
feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and
importance--above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,
then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as
Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.
... Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The
intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned
with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the
omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles
with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite
regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the
habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,
one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there
in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,
Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and
variable character to the population. Let us not forget the
vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom
trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where
the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had
opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and
Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships
on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,
as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the
wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,
the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the
silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of
Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece--a thousand
imports from all the Mediterranean--came to be exchanged for
the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of
India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,
the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.
Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to
the marvellous fertility and great population--it is said to
have been seven millions--of Egypt, they made all the profits
of this enormous carrying trade.
{38}
We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were
by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the
great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. ...
All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.
Philadelphus was anything but that. ... It was he who opened
up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great
port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for
centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern
parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna
to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the
Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and
of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the
progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the
world's history, and we must separate his University and its
professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate
section. ... The history of the organization of the University
and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For
the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we
should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford
type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and
spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,
and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,
this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for
teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a
centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model
came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the
Academy of Plato, had a fixed property--a home with its
surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,
it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and
where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed
stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the
successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a
property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and
so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius
the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,
brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake
drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no
doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the
great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled
Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle
moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in
one central repository all that the world knew or could
produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a
proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the
great library, which in those days had a thousand times the
value a great library has now, but also observatories,
zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other
new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from
the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and
museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most
brilliant group of students in literature and science was
formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the
grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall
presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated
the process by which the size of the earth is determined
to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of
Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of
philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to
have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of
the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,
Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who
mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to
this day. ... The vast collections of the library and museum
actually determined the whole character of the literature of
Alexandria. One word sums it all up--erudition, whether in
philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange
to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was
no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact
that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.
Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious
words, were departments of research dear to them. In science
they did great things, so did they in geography. ... But were
they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to
the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next
generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus
developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its
place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the
credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in
literature--the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;
the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas
and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of
our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk
songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of
Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was
fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was
far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for
ever."
J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13-14.
"There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
Matter, Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
seg., 237 seq.) It is not stated by any ancient writer
where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
{39}
Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
great Alexandrian library. ... Gibbon seems to think that the
whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
the Emperor Theodosius--see below]; but this was not the case.
It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
standing long afterwards."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the
Moslems,
See below: A. D. 641-646.
ALSO IN
O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3.
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12.
See, also, NEOPLATONICS.
ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
Cæsar and Cleopatra.
The Rising against the Romans.
The Siege.
Destruction of the great Library.
Roman victory.
From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
priceless libraries of Alexandria--the library of the
Museum--was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.
A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War.
ALSO IN
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 20.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18.
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 12.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
Destruction of the Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 116.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
Massacre by Caracalla.
"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
of his rapine and cruelty. ... In the midst of peace, and upon
the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
sufferers."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
Tumults of the Third Century.
"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
solitude."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 10.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.
After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
everafter."
J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors,
book 27.
{40}
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
Siege by Diocletian.
A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
Alexandria; those proud cities ... were utterly destroyed."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
Great Earthquake.
See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
Destruction of the Serapeum.
"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
city and temple of Serapis. ... The archepiscopal throne of
Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. ... The
votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
"The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
prejudice."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
annotator, Dr. Smith.
See above: B. C. 282-246.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.
"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
the sectaries. ... The toleration, and even the privileges of
the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
guilty."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
learning; her modesty commended both. ... Hypatia lived in
great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
hostility to the patriarch. ... Some of Cyril's ferocious
partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
rent her limb from limb."
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
C. Kingsley, Hypatia.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
Taken by Chosroes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
The Moslem Conquest.
The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
and retaking of the city--641 and 646--have been much confused
in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
Alexandrian Library--or so much of it as had escaped
destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
patriarchs--is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
Abulpharagus--that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
were pernicious.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
{41}
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.
See CRETE: A. D. 823.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
Captured by the French under Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
Battle of French and English.
Restoration to the Turks.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
Surrendered to the English.
The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
Bombardment by the English.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
Bombardment by the English fleet.
Massacre of Europeans.
Destruction.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------
ALEXANDRIA, LA., The Burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
ALEXANDRIA, VA., A. D. 1861 (May).
Occupation by Union troops.
Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.
ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.
Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.
Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1195-1203
Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
Greek), A. D. 1203-1204
Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1204.
ALFONSO
ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134
Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.
Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
A. D. 739-757.
Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.
Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.
Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.
Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.
Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.
Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.
Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.
Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.
Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.
Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.
Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.
Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.
Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.
Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.
Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.
Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.
Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.
Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.
Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.
Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.
Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.
Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.
Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.
ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.
ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.
"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
side of which was separated from the land."
M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314.
For history, see BARBARY STATES.
ALGIHED, The.
The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
be a Holy War.
ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.
ALGUAZIL.
See ALCALDE.
ALHAMA, The taking of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
ALHAMBRA, The building of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.
ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).
See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.
ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
ALKMAR, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.
ALLEGHANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.
ALLEMAGNE.
The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
the Alemanni.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.
See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.
And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).
ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,--1645.)
See GERMANY: A.. D. 1640-1645.
ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.
ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
{42}
ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.
The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
of that people was reserved for Cæsar.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21.
ALMA, Battle of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).
ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.
See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
ALMOHADES, The.
The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. ...
With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
dynasty gradually declined. ... The Almohades, like the
Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
attempt to remember."
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5.
ALSO IN
H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 4
See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.
ALMONACID, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
ALMORAVIDES, The.
During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
a missionary from Kairwan--one Abdallah--preaching the faith
of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
"The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
Moslems. ... The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
Spain. ... The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
own" [the Almohades].
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5.
ALSO IN
H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8,
chapter 2 and 4.
See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
ALOD.--ALODIAL
"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
exists between the words odal and alod, but their
signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
appear in the host and in the council. ... The land held in
full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
land."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, c
hapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36.
{43}
"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
inheritance. . . . Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."
H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note.
ALSO IN
J. M. Kemble, The Saxon in England, book 1, chapter 11.
See, also, FOLCLAND.
ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.
ALPHONSO.
See ALFONSO.
ALSACE.--ALSATIA:
The Name.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
ALSACE: 10th Century.
Joined to the Empire.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
ALSACE: 10th Century.
Origin of the House of Hapsburg.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246--1282.
ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
Revolt of the Peasants.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
Complete Absorption in France.
Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
Seizure of Strasburg.
Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
Invasion by the Austrians.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
Ceded to the German Empire by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
ALSACE: 1871-1879.
Organization of government as a German Impanel Province.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.
----------ALSACE: End----------
ALTA CALIFORNIA.--Upper California.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
ALTHING, The.
See THING;
Also, NORMANS.--NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
ALTIS, The.
See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.
ALTMARCK.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
Burned by the Swedes.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.
AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.
AMAHUACA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
AMALEKITES, The.
"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the
Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the
Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:
12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,--Edomites,
Ammonites, and Moabites,--who stood in a relation of close
kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in
dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and
establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had
partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir
(Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,
'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy
2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to
the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were
termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however
stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more
northerly neighbours. ... Separate from the Edomites or
Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed
an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was
confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as
camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) ... The
Kenites ... did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They
were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the
Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of
Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the
Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them
as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and
Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or
'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."
A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, chapter 6.
ALSO IN
H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.
See, also, ARABIA.
AMALFI.
"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the
interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of
which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known
before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant
career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.
554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the
middle of the twelfth. ... There must be, I suspect, some
exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the
only age when she possessed any at all."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 1, with note.
{44}
"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two ... ravines, the
mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their
very house-walls. ... It is not easy to imagine the time when
Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and
harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little
communities were second in importance to no naval power of
Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy
during the eighth century; and after this time the history of
Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and
Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,
their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation
by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.
D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and
the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of
Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two
Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port
of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;
founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly
order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in
Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all
the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'
formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had
stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their
shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime
laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,
prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,
and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if
they did not actually invent, the compass. ... The republic
had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.
When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage
of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see
ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers
succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to
extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for
assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little
commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of
Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and
when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called
Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The
ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of
Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at
Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on
its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the
harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects
of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to
complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from
the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was
ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's
teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."
J. A. Symonds, Sketches and Studies in Italy,
pages 2-4.
AMALINGS, OR AMALS.
The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or
Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from
the gods.
AMAZIGH, The.
See LIBYANS.
AMAZONS.
"The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early
creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.
... A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,
dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary
intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and
burning out their right breast with a view of enabling
themselves to draw the bow freely,--this was at once a general
type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme
eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all
repugnant to the faith of the latter--who had no recorded
facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as
to the past except such poetical narratives themselves--to
conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in
anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females
constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally
accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to
illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he
ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled
in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of
resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be
employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who
indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against
the Amazons. ... The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the
river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast
of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,
in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by
Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the
Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not
yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe
aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,
carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by
invading Attica ... and penetrated even into Athens itself:
where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,
by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought--in the very heart
of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the
exact position of the two contending armies. ... No portion of
the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply
worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and
defeat of the Amazons. ... Their proper territory was asserted
to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian
colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia
Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians
and geographers. ... Some authors placed them in Libya or
Ethiopia."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 11.
AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.
The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. ...
After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
accident rather than design that led him to it. After ...
Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
country ten days' journey beyond--a country of gold, and with
plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
and stronger vessel. ... On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
they know what direction they should take.' Following the
coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"
H. H. Smith, Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast, chapter 1.
In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at
length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,
both early and recent, concerning it.--Mr. Southey had so much
respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to
restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the
great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much
resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon
fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his
map, and in all his references to the great river he
denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of
Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O
Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among
those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.
... Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more
appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of
waters.' ... The origin of the name and mystery concerning the
female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few
years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. ... Mr. Wallace, I think,
shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his
companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in
habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. ... I
am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has
arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the
early voyagers."
J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
Brazilians, chapter 27.
ALSO IN
A. R. Wallace, Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,
chapter 17.
R. Southey, History of Brazil, chapter 4 (volume 1).
AMAZULUS, OR ZULUS.-The Zulu War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.
AMBACTI.
"The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] ... developed the system of
retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround
themselves with a number of hired mounted servants--the
ambacti as they were called--and thereby to form a state
within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of
their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common
levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. ... This
remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as
the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the
Po. ... It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the
root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is
common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great
historical importance to ascertain whether the word--and
therefore the thing--came to the Celts from the Germans or to
the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the
word is originally German and primarily signified the servant
standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,
'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable
with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the
Celts. ... It is ... probable that the Celts, in Italy as in
Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired
servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that
case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note.
AMBARRI, The.
A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district
between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.
Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note.
AMBIANI, The.
See BELGÆ.
AMBITUS.
Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and
many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 9.
AMBIVARETI, The.
A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.
Napoleon III., History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, note.
AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)
See FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.
AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
AMBOISE, Edict of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
AMBOYNA, Massacre of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).
See KORKYRA.
AMBRONES, The.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
AMBROSIAN CHURCH.--AMBROSIAN CHANT.
See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
AMEIXAL, OR ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
{46}
AMERICA, The Name.
See below: A. D. 1500-1514.
AMERICA, Prehistoric.
"Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to
sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated
by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly
in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with
shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others
cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds
were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the
country. They did not attract great attention, however, until
the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then
they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people
older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on
the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told
of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of
culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and
using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of
many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The
research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject
in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch
have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the
mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early
explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of
North American Indians; so we know that many of them were
builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these
mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art
found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At
the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they
were produced before modification by European culture, have
been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of
collections have been carefully compared. All this has been
done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's
arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially
identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the
figment of theory that there was an ancient race of
Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American
Indians. ... That some of these mounds were built and used in
modern times is proved in another way. They often contain
articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and
copper ornaments. ... So it chances that to-day unskilled
archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,
stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to
the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the
mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper
spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected
in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. ...
The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,
proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some
were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely
scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to
build communal houses. ... Some of the very large mounds were
sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.
There is still a third class ... constructed as places for
public assembly. ... But to explain the mounds and their uses
would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say
that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by
white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected
by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but
they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still
existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,
conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found
only at great heights. ... The tribes lived in the plains and
valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.
The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the
ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon
walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of
loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence
these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and
they had large communal houses, even larger than the
structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.
Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins
are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little
of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the
whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the
Isthmus. ... No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a
higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,
Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands
of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing
tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,
made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates
that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone
and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the
exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about
1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]
has been built since, and it is among the largest and best
villages ever established within the territory of the United
States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."
With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the
craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or
otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent
archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo
ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the
crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the
tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to
hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the
Indian tribes. ... Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it
began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the
highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when
the good queen sold her jewels."
Major J. W. Powell, Prehistoric Man in America;
in "The Forum," January, 1890.
"The writer believes ... that the majority of American
archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that
any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of
our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving
that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a
stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.
Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish
conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition
from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written
language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not
yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."
H. W. Haynes, Prehistoric Archæology of North America
(volume 1, chapter 6, of "Narrative and Critical History of
America").
{47}
"It may be premised ... that the Spanish adventurers who
thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same
race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and
South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life
and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and
customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
physical characteristics, they were the same people in
different stages of advancement. ... There was neither a
political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in
America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but
one race of Indians, the Red Race."
L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the American
Aborigines: (Contributions to North American Ethnology,
v, 5.), chapter 10.
"We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the
existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the
primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and
developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars
to the Homeric age of Greece."
F. W. Putnam, Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,
1886.
ALSO IN
L. Carr, The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley.
C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1883-84.
Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America.
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 1.
See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.
AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.
The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the
Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was
prominently brought before the people of this country in the
year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at
Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North
America, under the editorial supervision of the great
Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose
that the first general account of these voyages was then
given, for it has always been known that the history of
certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were
preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. ... Yet,
owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple
in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not
understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years
been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through
a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted
out to vague and uncertain reports. ... It now remains to give
the reader some general account of the contents of the
narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the
western continent. ... The first extracts given are very
brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to
the report in general circulation, which indicated one
Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has
been fixed at the year 876. ... The next narrative relates to
the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in
983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards
returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to
Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their
abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions
of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year,
986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a
storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not
visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son
of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid
to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are
hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of
considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who
found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter,
returning to Greenland the following spring [having named
different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and
Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes].
After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of
Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the
point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was
begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one
of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his
brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing
home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most
distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an
Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern
annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish
ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006
he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein,
whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the
undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with
three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here
his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a
great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its
first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found
it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the
natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman
named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland
in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the
same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she
returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly
murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After
this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are
not essential.
B. F. De Costa, Pre-Columban Discovery of America,
General Introduction.
By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as
discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed
to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of
Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with
Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England.
Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's
Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay,
Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities
supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked
by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor
Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian
investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the
sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in
Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton
Island.
G. Storm, Studies of the Vineland Voyages.
{48}
"The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of
the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the
general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which
ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more
than facts will warrant. ... Archælogical remains of the
Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to
near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the
North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a
single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy
of credence, has ever been found. ... The most convincing
proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America,
south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of
horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of
North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish,
French and English settlers."
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 2.
"What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor
Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent,
must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of
personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story
of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse
voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two
centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of
such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later
still. ... A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say
that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on
facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into
pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories
that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make
appear as genuine chronicles. ... The weight of probability is
in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American
mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south
of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches
to well established historical records. ... There is not a
single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to
time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the
presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of
Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of
America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the
possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by
Professor Winsor in the same connection.
J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same.
ALSO IN
Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the United States,
chapter 3.
E. F. Slafter, Editor,
Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877).
E. F. Slafter, Editor,
Discovery of America by the Northmen (N. H. History
Society, 1888).
N. L. Beamish, Discovery of America by the
Northmen.
A. J. Weise, Discoveries of America, chapter 1.
AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
His departure from Palos.
"All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement
by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to
him have signally failed. ... Columbus originated no new
theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular
idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of
the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the
glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the
project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new
theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his
predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the
first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by
sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance
with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had
entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the
West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added
the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to
overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he
believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be
two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever
be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese
voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of
the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to
Columbus his project? ... Second, to what extent did his
voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English
merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to
have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no
evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that
voyage of the existence of land in the west. ... Still, his
visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first
formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time
could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,
summary appendix to chapter 1.
"Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
own idea himself. ... He first applied himself to his
countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
... Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it--the
story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
{49}
"The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
placed at his disposal. ... The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary
Islands."
Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, book 2,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN
J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 5-9, and 20.
AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
The First Voyage of Columbus.
Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.
The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the
Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but
the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships,
and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were
caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The
'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the
letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern
coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her
sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a
main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a
boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta'
and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen
sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the
latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d
of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos,
and this memorable voyage was commenced. ... The expedition
proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta'
was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running
before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square
sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the
vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the
expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera,
one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. ... Columbus had
chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate
prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a
course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to
the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly
to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds--namely, the
north-east trade winds--always moving in the same direction,
as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are
turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus
were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature
which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of
her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm
among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions
would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these
unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which
excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the
compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. ...
This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300
miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships
had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers
found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is
called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears.
They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of
weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit
of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known
now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a
circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found
crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there
is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin,
the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the
centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to
this day, moving up and down and changing its position
according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its
mean position. ... As day after day passed, and there was no
sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous.
Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told
them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that,
with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At
length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus
was on the poop and saw a light. ... At two next morning, land
was distinctly seen. ... The island, called by the natives
Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been
ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles
long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24°
10' 30'' north latitude. ... The difference of latitude
between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5°
South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily,
85'; voyage 35 days. ... After discovering several smaller
islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October,
and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it
to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli,
between Europe and Asia. ... Crossing the channel between Cuba
and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of
St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with
presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus ... named
the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this
peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The
Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank
and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small
colony on the island. ... A fort was built and named 'La
Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and
provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his
homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted
several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17,
and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.
C. R. Markham, The Sea Fathers, chapter 2.
C. R. Markham, Life of Columbus, chapter 5.
{50}
The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which
Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has
now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly
justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador
or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand
Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor
says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's
Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men
will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which
these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."
J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 9.
J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 1, note B.
Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively
asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there
has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question
is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus
Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best
supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was
the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 5 (volume 1).
ALSO IN
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
appendix 18.
AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
Papal grant of the New World to Spain.
"Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most
momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at
the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of
the discovery of a new continent. ... Ferdinand and Isabella
thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from
their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to
have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen;
and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the
African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of
urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to
them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To
remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had
recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5
[1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and
Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish
monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to
be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined
his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and
south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South
Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the
Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present
knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a
vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's
stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the
American Continent except the Brazilian coast.
M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the
Reformation, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).
ALSO IN
E. G. Bourne, The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
(Yale Review., May, 1892).
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 6 (volume 1).
J. Gordon, The Bulls distributing America
(American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4).
See, also, below: A. D. 1494.
AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
The Second Voyage of Columbus.
Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
Subjugation of Hispaniola.
"The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery
presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at
Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the
bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large
ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. ... Before
sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the
Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there
calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the
island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons,
bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus
first introduced into the islands of the west from the
Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not
until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries,
and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser
Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing
through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of
Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity
of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on
the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten
months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the
marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his
unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure,
had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until
the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning
the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor
ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the
founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the
present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of
which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of
the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part
of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While
the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent
back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration
of the interior of the island--the mountains of Cibao--where
abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were
found--far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the
Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their
appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot
before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail
with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more
extended exploration than he had attempted on the first
discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme
end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the
proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and
those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous
countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of
gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the
island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native
name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed
in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba
and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western
extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief
that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to
the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a
voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried
Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his
illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to
his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived
and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the
extremity of the Asiatic continent."
{51}
Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some
further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils
and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy,
resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound
torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned,
therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and
spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those
seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete
insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"--Sept. 4.
Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his
brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for
years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command
of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to
Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were
again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they
plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making
priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing
officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the
court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly,
reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude
and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to
Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his
enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his
brother Bartholomew.
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, books 6-8
(volumes 1-2).
ALSO IN
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 2.
J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 12-14.
AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.
"When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is
generally believed that the only title upon which were based
the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull
of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take
into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the
petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of
Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the
portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made
between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian
fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise,
owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic
congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced
by any student of elementary mathematics. This line ... runs
along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. ... The
name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle
of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the
continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two
centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and
the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were
acquiring."
L. L. Dominguez, Introduction to "The Conquest of the
River Plate" (Hakluyt Society Publications. No. 81).
AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.
"The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of
which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every
thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which
belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and
'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A
feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters
had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his
voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore,
not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at
Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery.
On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a
commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of
them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the
eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships,
at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or
regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the
banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as
vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the
territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in
this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the
patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land
at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part
of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all
the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to
their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent,
which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward
America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and
commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son
Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to
Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he
reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in
the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his
third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two
years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he
discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of
about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran
along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and
landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand
Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were
marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a
large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for
the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which
had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he
saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of
provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of
three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor,
where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and
encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him
the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and
even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him
with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many
as he pleased. ... On the third day of the month of February
next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly
obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the
rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and
once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with
him of their own will. With this license every trace of John
Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no
one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it
has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a
continent first saw the light."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. of Am.
(Author's last Revision), part 1, chapter 1.
{52}
In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the
Cabots, in the Narrative and Critical History of America,
there is published, for the first time, an English translation
of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of
Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an
account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a
Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to
light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to
the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian
Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a
merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles
Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North
America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian
being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was
made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the
map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany
in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is
inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according
to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle
Isle, and thence home. ... The extensive sailing up and down
the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with
Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told
as occurring on the voyage of discovery--as only one voyage is
ever mentioned--must have taken place on a later voyage."
C. Deane, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume
3, chapter 1, Crit. Essay.
ALSO IN
R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-8.
AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.
"Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early
part of the year 1496 until after his return from the
Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504,
rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed
to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a
cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or
April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other
addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then
Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4,
1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made
under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or
pilot. These letters ... became speedily popular, and many
editions were published, more especially in France, Germany,
and Italy. ... The letter to Soderini gives an account of four
voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the
service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal.
The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and
returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so
long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This
voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America
not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing
that was calculated to invest it with much importance in
Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as
has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to
attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a
slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in
the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a
while to be practically identified with the second voyage,
made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most
outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which
it has been left for the present century to remove. The second
voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de
Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500.
They explored the northern coast of South America from some
point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as
far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding
year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo.
Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going
over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained
cruising till February. ... It is certainly much to be
regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition,
Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief
commander. ... However ... he was writing not for us, but for
his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would
interest him. ... Of the letter to Soderini the version which
has played the most important part in history is the Latin one
first published at the press of the little college at
Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. ... It
was translated, not from an original text, but from an
intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years,
however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian
text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was
ultimately derived. ... If now we compare this primitive text
with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe
that, in the latter, one proper name--the Indian name of a
place visited by Americus on his first voyage--has been
altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has
become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious
editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of
course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is
a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his
study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of
it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of
the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river
Panuco--fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern
neighbours the Aztecs--he would have known that names of
places in that region were apt to end in ab. ... But as such
facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot
much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed
doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a
region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab
became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other
is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation
shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition,
and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there
has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious
circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first
voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an
Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44
large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree-
trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could
be drawn up in case of danger.
{53}
This may well have been a village of communal houses of the
Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were
afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was
called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over
a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious
town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to
Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if
that style of defensive building had not been common enough in
many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient
Switzerland to modern Siam. ... Thus in spite of the latitudes
and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter,
did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the
Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now
there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with
Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the
gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499,
one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by
Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in
these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when
people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have
come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was
suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be
merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and
that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in
order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the
continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was
assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with
the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the
shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so
simple and intelligible that it became quite generally
adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be
critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about
sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in
no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from
projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as
soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared
to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation
against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely
pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in
order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the
continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter
to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what
we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of
which there could be any question, so far as supplanting
Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was
generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia,
by his new route, in 1492. ... It was M. Varnhagen who first
turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. ...
Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of
Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to
any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds"
that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern
coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found
his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden
Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with
the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and
carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a
straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without
touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the
Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius
understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude
definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few
interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a
dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be
"an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is
to this day an important article of food in tropical America.
... After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still
to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the
windings of the coast for 870 leagues. ... After traversing
the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves
'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen
supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but
afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood
of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June,
1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. ...
They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour,
preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very
hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white
strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a
fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some
distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition,
and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly
Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with
the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the
Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The
Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk
fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners.
Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled
home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for
Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of
Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well
received and sold our slaves.' ... The obscurity in which this
voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact
that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and
the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the
impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of
America unless we bear in mind all the attendant
circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which
revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would
have attracted much attention in Spain and have become
altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument,
however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers
were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to
astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on
this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the
coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco
Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be
simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. E. Lester and A. Foster, Life and Voyages of Americus
Vespucius, part 1, chapter 7.
J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 15.
{54}
AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
The ground of English claims in the New World.
"The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this
patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in
that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is
not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. ...
Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he
was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age.
And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics,
and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in
company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone
else his father's views, and also the position of the newly
discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as
a fit person for the command of another expedition to the
northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers,
were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed
with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month
of May. We have no certain information regarding his route.
But he appears to have directed his course again to the
country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with
his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of
this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he
encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great
displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved
to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a
southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to
anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his
vessels after their Arctic hardships. ... He probably was the
first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which
through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland
southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on
his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and
open water to India.' ... After having rounded Cape Cod, he
must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west,
and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore
nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in
the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. ...
From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it
appears ... certain that Cabot landed on some places of the
coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a
conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the
subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he
had found on most of the places copper or brass among the
aborigines.' ... From another authority we learn that he
captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England,
where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by
the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at
what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary
with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians
until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's
Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south
of New York harbor. ... The southern terminus of his voyage is
pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter
Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the
Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude,
which is near that of Cape Hatteras. ... On their return from
their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had
discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more
extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views
of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and
barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude,
from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier
across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a
sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of
China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found
land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr.
G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London
in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the
scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to
recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one
vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' ...
When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for
another expedition to the same regions, he was supported
neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the
scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay
was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of
this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of
the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that
great continent, in which now the English race and language
prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true
beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English
claims and possessions in the northern half of America."
J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-10.
J. F. Nicholls, Life of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 5.
AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
The Third and Fourth Voyages of Columbus.
Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the
shores of Central America and Panama.
When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and
Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised
him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and
delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not
correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found
world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most
people were of this mind; though Columbus was not
disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a
third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and
Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th
of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named
either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck
the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was
later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of
Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the
Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he
half believed that its exuberant tide came from the
terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti
on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had
established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo
Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically
during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a
revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival
found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a
while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching
Roldan warmly to his interests.
{55}
Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name
without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new
commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with
authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if
necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who
arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of
August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the
Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego
refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus
returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed
charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the
Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his
brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the
prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The
captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but
Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in
Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his
degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were
shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to
make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon
apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by
the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short
of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the
sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before
Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral
had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the
Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to
undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage;
and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was
supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each.
... He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his
brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached
San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a
half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de
Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor--with
Maldonado, Las Casas and others--now lay in the harbor waiting
to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been
instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his
vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat
ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused,
though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best
he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board
Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was
wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The
Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs;
and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed,
the richer portions of India. ... A landing was made on the
coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers
landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession
of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in
gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape
which they rounded, Gracias à Dios--a name still preserved at
the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend
southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on
deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels
coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica;
then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until
they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found
houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of
Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along
the northern coast of South America." There turning back,
Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa
Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold
proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral,
withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one
worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica,
beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want
followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew
alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island.
Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily
and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally
humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in
Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his
companions to that place, where Ovando received him with
ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus
departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in
November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was
not until the following May that he had strength enough to go
to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received
by King Ferdinand--Isabella being dead. "While still hope was
deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships
brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of
May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted
friends by his bedside."
J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 2 and 4.
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 10-18 (volume 2).
AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.
The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.
The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.
One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who
accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo
de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to
Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop
Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the
Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the
discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this
assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by
the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in
his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus
complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying
that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.
They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and
after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200
leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed
on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,
and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and
Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted
westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It
was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda
gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of
the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which
brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.
{56}
From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,
and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,
where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.
His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the
delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from
the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,
carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,
from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the
beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set
sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his
first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the
first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.
and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.
Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la
Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the
westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the
Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his
departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and
on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to
discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed
vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the
water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two
lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe
also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,
which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil
trended south-west."
R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, chapter 19.
ALSO IN:
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, volume 3, chapter 1-3.
AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to
the Isthmus of Darien.
"The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their
important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in
the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No
journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence
little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a
previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal,
father of Gaspar. ... Touching at the Azores, Gaspar
Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast
of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north
discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps
Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named
Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to
Lisbon before the end of 1500. ... In October of this same
year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels.
Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which
lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the
coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on
the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude.
Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501,
and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first
authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined
as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be
given hereafter."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,
page 113.
"We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a
humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his
life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not
consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that
a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in
his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this
expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest
influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."
Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America,
book 5, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 5.
R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, book 2, chapters 3-5.
See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
Voyage of Cabral.
The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.
Curious evolution of the continental name "America."
"Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of
Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a
fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and
establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast.
This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed
from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde
Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether
driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that
were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a
somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April
22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per
day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond
the limit reached by Lepe. ... Approaching it in such a way
Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the
papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in
latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country
for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships
back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor
and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. ... Cabral called the
land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became
Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he
had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest
names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of
Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay
obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at
last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.'
Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to
prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished
to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer
familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to
Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high
reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do
not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with
Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from
the service of Spain into that of Portugal. ... On May 14,
1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding
spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from
Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was
chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for
believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first
halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first
week in June. ... After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever
seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude
about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the
festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to
the cape before which they dropped anchor.
{57}
From this point they slowly followed the coast to the
southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. ...
It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that
they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known
by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New
Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years
later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to
have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like
some that had already been seen in this strange world; for
they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by
February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left
the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean.
Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of
direction. ... Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of
the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles
wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led
him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent.
At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees
west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore
unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no
use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only
to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of
direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the
little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island
of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to
turn homeward. "Vespucius ... headed straight North North East
through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of
more than 4,000 miles was made--with wonderful accuracy,
though Vespucius says nothing about that--in 33 days. ...
Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they
arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. ... Among all the
voyages made during that eventful period there was none that
as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and
there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked
it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into
the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was
preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the
Southern hemisphere. ... A coast of continental extent,
beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and
running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond,
did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. ... It was land
unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying
that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny
had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it
a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first
occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to
any part of what we now call America, the reader must be
careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in
our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius
was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on
a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by
Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed
after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his
letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or
April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter
begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at
sufficient length about my return from those new countries
which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most
gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is
proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the
new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from
Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to
call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them:
'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and
to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it
transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say
that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent,
but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of
them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found
many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country.
But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of
theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts."
... This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a
private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503,
about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth
voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin
version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was
printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' ... The
little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the
great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at
least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course
of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German
versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by
this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond
the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to
the ancients,--who did know something, at least, about the
eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was
supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began
soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a
great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the
equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the
earth [previously known], and so this opposite region,
hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by
Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand
the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people
read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we
can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing
calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of
Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in
doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very
different things; and to give credit to one was by no means
equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507,
Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié,
published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic
Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of
Vespucius--the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account
is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)--appended to it. "In this
rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America.
{58}
After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited
surface into three parts--Europe, Asia, and
Africa--Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth
Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to
hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land
of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious
mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from
women.' ... Such were the winged words but for which, as M.
Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to
be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New
India, or perhaps Columbia. ... In about a quarter of a
century the first stage in the development of the naming of
America had been completed. That stage consisted of five
distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him
beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to
the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus
Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. ... 3.
the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an
equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4.
the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part
of the earth, and might properly be named America after its
discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several
maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to
Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a
globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an
equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to
stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America,
but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the
Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. ... This wider
meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly
established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name
Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red
dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under
that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable
things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found
the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had
seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became
fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name
America from its local associations." When, in time, and by
slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands
found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors,
formed part of one continental system, and were all to be
embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had
become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended
to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the
western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541,
by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon
a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it
appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern
continent.
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
W. B. Scaife, America: Its Geographical History,
section 4.
R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,
chapter 19.
J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, ch, 2, notes.
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages
99-112, and 123-125.
AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.
Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
Banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
AMERICA: A. D. 1502..
The Second Voyage of Ojeda.
The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to
Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his
reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of
reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and
likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had
discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was
authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and
to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. ... With
four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and
thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he
found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he
sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found
his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short
duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his
partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica,
failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a
state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail
for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All
that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came
off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him
a ruined man."
R G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
book 1, chapter 1.
AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.
The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
First Settlement in Brazil.
In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six
ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain
island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of
Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the
Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de
Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of
all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra
Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one
vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a
port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited
above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the
rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they
coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took
port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here
they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives,
with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the
interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24
men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave
them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six
months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and
returned in safety. ... The honour, therefore, of having
formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo
Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as
this time paid to it. ... But the cargo of brazil which
Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who
were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that
valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in
consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name
of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz]
which Cabral had given it."
R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1, chapter 1.
{59}
AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.
The Settlement at Darien.
"For several years after his ruinous, though successful
lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that
we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela],
in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to
have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find
him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse,
though as proud in spirit, as ever. ... About this time the
cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts
by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral
fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the
ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in
building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had
corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches
of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved,
therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to
place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was
recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of
the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King
Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by
furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents
and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich
returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies
along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary
line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part,
extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and
the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west
[called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to
Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of
Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place
whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the
equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran
pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant.
Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived
at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much
quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a
notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had
money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who
promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of
recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready
to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509.
Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the
future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time
enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached
the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon
the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the
country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate
savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned
arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was
among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was
nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a
searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of
Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a
common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were
joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared
nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda
founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end
of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives,
terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in
their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid
exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and
hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At
length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers
at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome
provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half
recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated
heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to
convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The
voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the
coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the
morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and
sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San
Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the
colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn
nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of
returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the
place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a
convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San
Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be
all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were
left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One
of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made
its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy
Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his
commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San
Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and
even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter
had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de
Balboa--so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's
ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had
coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a
removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the
Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good,
and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes
of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called
attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of
Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent
to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that
granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly
deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While
events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus
establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself,
at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had
suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and
long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his
followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in
their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700
who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at
Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios
undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this
situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of
his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with
supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the
prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his
way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the
government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight;
but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before
he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he
arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a
treacherous party among the colonists--to whom Balboa is said
to have opposed all the resistance in his power--was put on
board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his
friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail
straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of
March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the
island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus and his
Companions, volume 3.
ALSO IN
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 6.
{60}
AMERICA: A. D. 1511.
The Spanish conquest and occupation of Cuba.
See CUBA: A. D. 1511.
AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,
and his Discovery of Florida.
"Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by
Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he
did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first
exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This
cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the
vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies,
that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain
whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of
his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous
region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set
sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N.
¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure;
and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday,
called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name
of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of
April, and took possession of the country in the name of the
king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a
name given by the Indians to all the country lying between
Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon,
however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his
exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and
on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his
course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of
Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and
described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered
the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad
weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to
repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the
orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de
Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land,
which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He
returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days
afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He
reported that he had explored the island,--which he described
as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,--but
he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places
Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all
the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this
voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of
'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon
him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order
to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the
homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."
W. B. Rye, Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of
Terra Florida, by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society,
1851).
ALSO IN G. R. Fairbanks, History of Florida, chapter 1
AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.
Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.
With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift,
Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in
affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for
faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to
carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's
colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade
proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with
gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien
adventurers had found considerable quantities in the
possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it
with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish
friendly relations with one of the most important of the
neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he
wedded--according to the easy customs of the country--and
whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift
and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested
more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking
of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little
compared with the treasures reported to them as existing
beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian
youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their
imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea,
not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of
which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He
told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to
fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the
story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the
king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They
sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the
following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the
court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had
unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had
caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced.
Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached
Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at
the same time, a commission as captain-general from the
authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the
discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described,
and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could
interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he
set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other
sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which
were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the
burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law,
King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by
whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting
the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without
fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa,
attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter
of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of
September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from
whence the South Sea was visible.
{61}
The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty
leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and
his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they
suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want
of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height,
Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the
sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time,
any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit
down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down
upon the vast Pacific--the first man of the Old World, so far
as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave
thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being
permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand
be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he
and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He
then addressed them. ... Having ... addressed his men, Vasco
Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the
kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in
order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees,
formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the
names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the
vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope
and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs,
having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he
called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his
person and took possession of this sea for the kings of
Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of
it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in
the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with"
the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his
way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth
of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route
which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north,
reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been
absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him
with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news,
'such signal and new news,' ... to the King of Spain,
accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a
detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length,
was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that
came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page
thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and
labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a
man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the
beginning of March, 1514. ... Vasco Nuñez's messenger,
Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his
master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in
the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his
authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De
Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;--an
envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus
the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest
and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously
exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias,
Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from
the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise
for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage
with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the
command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus,
carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But
circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity
to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to
accomplish his arrest--Francisco Pizarro being the officer
fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant.
Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried,
found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head
upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de
Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who,
since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike
and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose
career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the
other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful
regions of the earth."
Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America,
book 6 (volume 1).
"If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias
Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by
far the worst man who came officially to the New World during
its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all
agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458).
ALSO IN
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus and His
Companions, volume 3.
AMERICA: A. D. 1515.
Discovery of La Plata by Juan de Solis.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.
The Spaniards find Mexico.
"An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with
three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring
Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He
encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far
out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found
himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking
the name of the country, he was answered by the natives
'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the
Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily
corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different
etymology. ... Bernal Diaz says the word came from the
vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which
it is planted. ... M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible
derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what
they say.' ... Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of
the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size
and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and
lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and
rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was
struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and
with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold
ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization
far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New
World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in
the warlike spirit of the people. ... Wherever they landed
they were met with the most deadly hostility.
{62}
Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,
received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party
escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula
as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached
after an absence of several months. ... The reports he had
brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of
curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]
of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all
despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a
little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered
lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de
Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to
himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.
Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. ... Grijalva soon passed over to
the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same
places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,
with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the
architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region
of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the
subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at
the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of
worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by
these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula
the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider
extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced
the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered
less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,
however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic
with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the
satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and
trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and
vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva
now thought that in this successful traffic--successful beyond
his most sanguine expectations--he had accomplished the chief
object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one
of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and
continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province
of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months
from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised
to learn that another and more formidable armament had been
fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find
orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very
courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was
received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with
reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of
establishing a colony in the country he had visited."
W. H. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN: C.
St. J. Fancourt, History of Yucatan, chapter 1-2.
Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Memoirs, V. 1, chapter 2-19.
AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
The Spanish Conquest of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1524.
AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.
The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.
The Congress at Badajos.
Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese
gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies
under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the
Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and
astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited
Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At
the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove
that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of
demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from
that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to,
adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were
discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and
the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed
through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward
voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than
three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and
only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano]
to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise
was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe
for the first time began to assume its true character and size
in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp
and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the
enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of
geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences.
This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? ...
The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home,
now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were
thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their
rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade
with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their
prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of
the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves
energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the
Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the
first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse
with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian
subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar.
Hence these kings and their people came under the protection
of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the
Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore
doubly theirs. ... Matters thus waxing hot, King John of
Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet
until the disputed points could be discussed and settled.
Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich,
consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian
princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be
discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of
gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by
their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in
dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define
and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to
abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the
early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town
four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each
prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers,
mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and
pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as
then--such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan
Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. ... The debates and proceedings of
this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and
Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could
be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the
verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the
Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own
decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last
day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the
Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two
hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the
Portuguese. ... However, much good resulted from this first
geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific
were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon
after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."
H. Stevens, History and Geographical Notes,
1453-1530.
{63}
"For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the
Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by
famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith
his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea
and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched
food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome
matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he
resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying
daily. ... In the whole history of human undertakings there is
nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals,
this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in
comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman
perseverance."
J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of
Europe, chapter 19.
"The voyage [of Magellan] ... was doubtless the greatest feat
of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be
imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other
planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first
voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of
human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period.
But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of
Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when
the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest
English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well
as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty
of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the
ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies
that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were
endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as
the prince of navigators."
J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).
ALSO IN
Lord Stanley of Alderley, The First Voyage Round the
World (Hakluyt Society, 1874).
R. Kerr, Collection of Voyages, volume 10.
AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.
Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.
Exploration of the Carolina Coast.
In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been
one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having
heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own
charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good
pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His
professed object was to search for some strait, west of
Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of
the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his
ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports,
rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of
remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water
brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon
the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. ... The carefully drawn
map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in
this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of
the Espiritu Santo. ... But Garay thought not of the
Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of
Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a
dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the
river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in
1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom
the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out
two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for
their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they
passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called
Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the
name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given
to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large
number of the confiding natives on board their ships the
adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the
vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the
other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for
his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to
make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the
undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his
largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men
were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to
suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of
honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority,
made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of
St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which,
in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. 8., part 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7.
W. G. Simms, History of S. Carolina, book 1, chapter 1.
AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
The Voyages of Verrazano.
First undertakings of France in the New World.
"It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid
no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I.,
wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to
navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in
regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani,
who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which
began to be much talked of in France. ... Verazani was
accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North
America; but our historians have not spoken of his first
expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not
Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani
himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8,
1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the
success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself
with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which
he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he
sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to
cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same
year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine,
on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight
months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."
Father Charlevoix, History of New France
(translated by J. G. Shea), book 1.
{64}
"On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the
'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near
Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500
leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the
northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track
was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first
voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a
hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it,
and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation
to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400
leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had
never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators.
The country was very low. From the above description it is
evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the
United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his
land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He
first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states,
looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned
northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of
South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in
these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only
of the coast of North Carolina. ... He rounded Cape Hatteras,
and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore,
where he anchored and spent several days. ... This was the
second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50
leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the
east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some
authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most
likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in
other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape
Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south
of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to
Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100
leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his
third landing-place, in New York Bay. ... He found at this
third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to
anchor, well-protected from the winds, ... and from which he
ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the
shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league
further, he discovered a most beautiful lake ... of three
leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to
him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. ...
This description contains several accounts which make it still
more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these
occurrences."--Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend
Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the
lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay
Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long
Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or
describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay
and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and
Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North,
from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of
Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition,
from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a
half months."
J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine
(Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),
chapter 8.
ALSO IN
G. Dexter, Cortereal, Verrazano, &c. (Narrative and
Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 1).
Relation of Verrazano (New York Historical Society
Collection, volume 1, and N. S., volume 1).
J. C. Brevoort, Verrazano the Navigator.
AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.
The Explorations of Pizarro and Discovery of Peru.
"The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of
Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor
Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama
and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the
Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro,
a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of
Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one
of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always
was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and
settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and
in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to
perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown,
he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of
the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his
fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary
supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of
Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year
1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian
servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many
hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From
this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of
hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no
country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro
returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at
an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama.
Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become
unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen
was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind
to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived
at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain
Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro,
his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his
party followed the coast until they came to a great river,
which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of
Buenaventura, in New Granada]. ... They there found signs of
gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the
Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his
comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to
Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the
enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more
than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused
by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not
be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by
it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his
comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had
commenced, and ... Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men.
{65}
He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to
the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first
110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro
when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two
captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted
along the land. When they thought they saw signs of
habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with
them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They
continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great
hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews
died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and
during all those three years they discovered no good land. All
was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good
country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan,
where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors,
sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good
land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the
Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the
end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good
reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found
in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro
arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the
two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out
from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land.
But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long
that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were
obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships
reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the
Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the
villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern
Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were
seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when
90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of
Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them;
but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not
wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully,
with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there
were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives,
the villages having their streets and squares. One village had
more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to
the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be
done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers,
which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they
agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the
villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they
would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news
of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for
more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue
their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went
in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor
entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying
that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had
suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered
that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while
those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty
to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest
went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on
that island for five months, when one of the ships returned,
in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues
further down the coast. They found many villages and great
riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver,
and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by
the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by
the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had
been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two
Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute
their undertaking. ... The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only
able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his
friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an
account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had
performed."
F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro), Account of the Province
of Cuzco; translated and edited by C. R. Markham
(Hakluyt Society, 1872).
ALSO IN:
W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru,
book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1).
AMERICA: A. D. 1525.
The Voyage of Gomez.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): THE NAMES.
AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.
Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.
The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
Discovery of the Mississippi.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
AMERICA: A. D. 1531-1533.
Pizarro's Conquest of Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.
AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
Spanish Conquest of the Kingdom of Quito.
See ECUADOR:
AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.
"At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip
Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to
resume the project of founding a French colony in the New
World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and
he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques
Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted.
Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d
of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He
steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair
winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in
Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still
covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he
could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees
south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name
of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. ... After
making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without
being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a
southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent,
and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from
heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with
the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians
that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs.
... On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the
coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in
the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in
all the places where he landed.
{66}
He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France,
and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. ... On
the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded
that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that
part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart
than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye.
This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample
than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This
fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier ...
embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were
separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the
close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of
rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to
take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the
river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the
arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is
almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by
Cartier. ... On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the
gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on
that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or
rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and
the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which
this bay is part; and because the river, before that called
River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly
acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. ...
The three vessels ... ascended the river, and on the 1st of
September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely
reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and ... hastened to
seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight
leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger
and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He
called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to
Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage,
printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the
country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken;
for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians
gave this name to the whole country along the river on both
sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island,
Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off,
and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix,
because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the
Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called
Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he
received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom
the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of
Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two
Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who
knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the
strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble
him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island
now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had
heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without
seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was
that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from
his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the
advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the
French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St.
Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga
Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of
palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each
over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a
single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade,
ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided
with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place.
The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They
received the French very well. ... Cartier visited the
mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the
name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island
[Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country,
the sight of which charmed him. ... He left Hochelaga on the
5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix."
Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly
from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the
following spring. "Some authors ... pretend that Cartier,
disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from
further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of
that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier
himself says in his memoirs. ... Cartier in vain extolled the
country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the
wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold
and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use
to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere
saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a
strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was
reckoned as nothing."
Father Charlevoix, History of New France
(translated by J. G. Shea), book 1.
ALSO IN:
R. Kerr, General Collection of Voyages,
part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6).
F. X. Garneau, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2.
AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1540.
Introduction of Printing in Mexico.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709.
AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
Spanish Conquests in Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
Spanish Conquests of New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.
Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.
"Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of
Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who
desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.
... The title and authority of lieutenant-general was
conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,
Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand
Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of
the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.
Jacques Cartier was named second in command. ... Jacques
Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his
fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until
the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of
the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to
a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during
the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned
his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.
{67}
In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy
chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion
could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid
the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant
silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail
for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise
paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent
settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques
Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval
proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues
west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,
and remained through the winter with his colony, having a
troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of
the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century
afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to
colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries
on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were
steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after
fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry
IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery
again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,
obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same
powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's
undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.
Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to
stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private
adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to
barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A
wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest
and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages
to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each
time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,
Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval
captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a
monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having
succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De
Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the
privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at
Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of
Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel
Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.
E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2-3.
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World:
Champlain, chapter 1-2.
AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.
Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.
"The history of English America begins with the three
slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562,
1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection
with America, previously to those voyages, had any result
worth recording. England had known the New World nearly
seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its
discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery
spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to
the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of
novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become
fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy
to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or
plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish
sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for
the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new
continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade
worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal
kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. ...
As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand
for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African
settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of
French and English adventurers, they procured from these
settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the
Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about
the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire
supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for
negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became
known to the English and French captains who frequented the
Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from
boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in
1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little
squadron with which he executed this project was the first
English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This
voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet
broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from
trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced.
The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in
disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note ...
from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the
first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have
closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage,
however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further
than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These
ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already
well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into
the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their
return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second
voyage ... he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping,
however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his
slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger
scale. ... Having sold his slaves in the continental ports
[South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other
goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike
out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would
carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's
narrative ... proves that at every point in these expeditions
the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He
had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little
doubt that one at least of these had already been with
Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to
Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune.
They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America,
then universally know in the mass as New France, to
Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds,
to Europe.
{68}
This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts
afterwards famous in history through English colonization. ...
The extremely interesting narrative ... given ... from the pen
of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions ...
contains the first information concerning America and its
natives which was published in England by an English
eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the
remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by
the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they
came home in due time richly freighted,--from what source is
not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had
changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and
Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint,
He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast,
where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he
sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake
sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of
fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a
disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves,
they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port
of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet.
Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel
escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged
to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority
of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew,
died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that
landed in England, in January, 1569.
E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to
America, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
The Hawkins Voyages; edited by C. R. Markham
(Hakluyt Society, No. 57).
R. Southey, Lives of the British Admirals, volume 3.
AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the
World.
"Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one
of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in
Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native
place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's
chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by
profession from boyhood; and ... had served as a young man, in
command of the Judith, under Hawkins, ... Hawkins had confined
himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This
practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the
purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of
another nation. The English, especially those of the west
country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and
the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in
consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in
the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to
settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared
for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her
interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of
cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America
which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in
pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage
was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made
more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American
coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre
de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of
the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way
into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap
of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake
himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to
retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the
winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the
Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked
on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of
Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to
Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the
excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this
occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and
there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific;
and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of
God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it
was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his
famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder
Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The
Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from
attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English
pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of
Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of
Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed
from Plymouth, Dec. 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels,
and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered
the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which
made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships,
separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while
attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake,
in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian
coasts, where he cruised until be had taken and plundered a
score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian
treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he
came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and
for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was
usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which
sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus
reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted
beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited
him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the
country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in
preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place
where He landed must have been either the great bay of San
Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or
the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further
north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more
to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He
believed himself to be the first European who had coasted
these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers
had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was
thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary
result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way
a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached
Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.
E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, pages
141-143.
ALSO IN
F. Fletcher, The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake
(Hakluyt Society, 1854).
J. Barrow, Life of Drake.
R. Southey, Lives of British Admirals, volume 3.
{69}
AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC; A. D: 1580-1777.
AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.
In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of
Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir
Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter
empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such
remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by
any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or
fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their
proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next
year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but
misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish
intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583,
Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the
general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern
parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which
left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the
expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels,
forms the first page in the history of English colonization.
Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking
possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English
name formerly applied to the continent in general ... was now
restricted. ... Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set
sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of
Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced;
one of his largest ships went down with all on board,
including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as
the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and
the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home,
intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next
spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was
sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization
found a watery grave. ... Gilbert was a man of courage, piety,
and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and
quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had
set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas
and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the
northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be
occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the
Canaries and the West Indies."
E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,
pages 173-174.
"On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the
frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by
waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of
joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried
out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within
hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,'
reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute
in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday
night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate
being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights
were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight,
and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which
was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and
swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that
night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of
England. ... In great torment of weather and peril of drowning
it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which
arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."
E. Hayes, A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert
(reprinted in Payne's Voyages).
ALSO IN
E. Edwards, Life of Raleigh, volume 1, chapter 5.
R. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations; edited by E. Goldsmid,
volume 12.
AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
Raleigh's First Colonizing attempts and failures.
"The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by
one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in
that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial
empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books;
like Drake he could rule men. ... The associations of his
youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to
sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and
there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in
his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent
precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the
thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task.
Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but
to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were
Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the
extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would
suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design,
they took a more southerly course than any of their
predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water,
and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near.
The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their
approach. The sight before them was far different from that
which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the
bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a
scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean.
... Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached
an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly
took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then
delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They
soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was
an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named,
as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them
from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than
a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved
friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle,
loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such
as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which
the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself
as of its inhabitants. ... With them they brought two of the
savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells
us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that
Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his
success.
{70}
On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made
preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was
provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was
under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to
establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of
Ralph Lane. ... On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set
sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a
circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the
island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in
the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders,
Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally
ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after
exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to
England, promising to come back the next spring with new
colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of
Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island
of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait.
There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and
there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion,
may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the
camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English
settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers
during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring
their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer
friends. ... The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and
without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for
their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have
supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in
guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He,
however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of
exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination
of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English,
and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At
the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with
the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared
and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a
great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical
expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain
Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the
disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be
taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board
his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was
in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the
coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful
supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the
departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later
Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in
the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last,
unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen
men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail
for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to
the Spaniards."
J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
chapter 4.
"It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his
company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco
as one of the products of the country, which they presented to
Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was
brought into use in England, and gradually in other European
countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this
point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by
Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter
Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some)
Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out
of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into
England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden
fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men
brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And
these men which were brought back were the first that I know
of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they
call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being
taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began
to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. ...
Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585
was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and
scientific turn, whose services in this connection were
greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went
back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his
observations in the New World."
L. N. Tarbox, Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony (Prince
Society 1884).
ALSO IN
T. Hariot, Brief and true Report (Reprinted in
above-named Prince Society Publication).
F. L. Hawks, History of North Carolina, volume 1 (containing
reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)
Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale
(Archæologia Americana, volume 4).
AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
The Lost Colony of Roanoke.
End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.
"Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an
agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and
families, who should make their homes in the New World; and,
that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he
granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal
government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed
its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the
administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships
were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen
Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing
'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived
on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the
dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they
hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of
men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found
the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones
lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The
fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The
instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new
settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval
officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West
Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and
White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. ... It was there
that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid.
But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning,
being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding
natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England,
under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and
supplies.
{71}
Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to
his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of
the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first
offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States.
The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony,
now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose
names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy
return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and
his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this
plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants
of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the
first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their
adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its
attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain.
... Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his
generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with
supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful
voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till
one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after
a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were
compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the
English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger;
nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered
till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even
then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless
expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient
for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used
the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants
and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus
obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia
is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first
efforts of England in North Carolina with the final
colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had
emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was
not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a
grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the
number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than
another year elapsed before White could return to search for
his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke
was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to
Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from
storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The
conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony,
neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted
into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh
long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their
existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at
five several times, to search for his liege men. But
imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate
of the colony of Roanoke."
G. Bancroft, History of the United States,
part 1, ch.5 (volume 1).
"The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony.
Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show
traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language
is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many
cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No
other theory of their origin has been advanced."
S. B. Weeks, The Lost Colony of Roanoke (American
History Association Papers, volume 5, part 4).
"This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost
colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors
in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave
of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it
ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind
was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and
not less arduous undertakings. ... Desirous, at the same time,
that a project which he had carried so far should not be
entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce
would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might
terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign
his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in
London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic
between England and Virginia. ... It appeared very soon that
Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different
from his own. ... Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on
by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take
possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's
death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."
J. Grahame, History of the Rise and Progress of the
United States of North America till 1688, chapter 1.
ALSO IN
W. Stith, History of Va., book 1.
F. L. Hawks, History of N. C., volume 1, Nos. 7-8.
AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.
The First Englishmen In New England.
Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had
served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the
Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,
"with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,
among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the
accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the
Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of
Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At
this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen
years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,
there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except
those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty
French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to
settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from
Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight
were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a
straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect
course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been
hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven
weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is
now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,
manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in
European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign
voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and
his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,
called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it
retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,
the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the
soil of Massachusetts. ... Sounding his way cautiously along,
first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and
probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next
landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.
{72}
To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since
transferred to the larger island further north. ... South of
Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard
Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted
on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost
of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was
denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. ... Here Gosnold
found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the
sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a
rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and
rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three
weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading
expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,
prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with
palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an
inventory of their provisions, they found that, after
supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the
return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks
for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the
question whether the party to be left behind would receive a
share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,
and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,
going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some
Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach
for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the
decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a
settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed
for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at
Exmouth. ... The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with
consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts
of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his
company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The
next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,
by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.
seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value
on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from
Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and
gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,
1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel
commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast
with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the
Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and
kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some
addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage
was fruitless."
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN
Massachusetts History Society Collection,
3d Series, volume 8 (1843).
J. McKeen, On the Voyage of George Weymouth
(Maine History Society Collection, volume 5).
AMERICA: A. D. 1603-1608.
The First French Settlements in Acadia.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605, and 1606-1608.
AMERICA: A. D. 1607.
The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the
failure in Maine.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after;
and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608.
The First Voyages of Henry Hudson.
"The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken
... for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing
from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of
sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what
is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched
further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a
wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland
to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a
passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the
entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This
design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the
attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his
homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher
degree of latitude than any previous navigator. ... He reached
England on his return on the 15th September of that year
[1607]. ... On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced
his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company,
with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by
the north-east. ... On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had
reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was
in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla."
Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he
returned to England in August.
J. M. Read, Jr., Historical Inquiry Concerning Henry
Hudson, pages 133-138.
ALSO IN
G. M. Asher, Henry Hudson, the Navigator
(Hakluyt Society, 1860).
AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.
Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and
the Great Lakes.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611, and 1611-1616.
AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
Hudson's Voyage of Discovery for the Dutch.
"The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of
Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they
could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was
destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He
longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;
and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the
Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search
of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia
stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of
treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar
Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a
small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,
the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship
is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned
by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of
the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of
ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who
had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the
west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and
running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in
the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of
Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,
believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of
New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the
north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of
Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite
the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered
that his countrymen were planted.
{73}
Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware
Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without
going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the
3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was
invading New York from the north, less than five months after
the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic
existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy
Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with
'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.
After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and
at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was
pronounced to be very good for all winds. ... Ten days were
employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,
Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last
the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of
Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.
Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and
two battles fought with them]. ... Having completed his
discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given
his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of
the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.
... A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into
Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant
account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands
which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused
to search further for the north-western passage."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S., chapter 15 (or part
2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision").
ALSO IN
H. R. CLEVELAND, Life of Henry Hudson (Library of American
Biographies, volume 10), chapters 3-4.
R. Juet, Journal of Hudson's Voyage (New York History
Society Collection., Second Series, volume 1).
J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton, History of the State of
New York, part 1.
AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.
The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting
exploration.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.
The Naming of the country New England.
"From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see
VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a
chasm in his biography. . . . In 1614, probably by his advice
and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some
London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for
the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it
was then called, North Virginia. ... In March, 1614, he set
sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and
the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at
the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they
built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were
to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper,
which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up
a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications,
and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for,
although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in
taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing
season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they
diligently employed the months of July and August in taking
and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While
the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in
a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from
Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs,
and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of
the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the
country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in
August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain
Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish
in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled
miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the
Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent
colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few
others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this
purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship,
he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of
Malaga. . . . Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his
map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince
Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would
substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had
been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the
country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and
not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. ... The first
port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was
Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his
friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in
the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth
Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes
and large promises, induced him to engage his services to
them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth,
with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers,
besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove
her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas
Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a
profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to
effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's
vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render
it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a
second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small
bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the
same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny
seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a
succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in
Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention
for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small
boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate,
in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too
much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself
in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and
an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form
in June, 1616. ... Captain Smith's work on New England was the
first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."
G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith (ch. 14-15).
ALSO IN
Captain John Smith, Description of New England.
{74}
AMERICA: A. D. 1619.
Introduction of negro slavery into Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the
Chartering of the Council for New England.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
Formation of the Government of Rio de La Plata.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
AMERICA: A. D. 1621.
Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.
Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
The Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
"Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a
grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north
latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of
October 5, 1629. ... The tenure is declared to be as ample as
any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England,
ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held
and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are
constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and
the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina
[or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina
islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the
earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several
parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was
checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil
war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death,
became earl of Arundel and Sussex ... made no attempt to avail
himself of the grant. ... Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to
the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive
possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long
time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast
extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th
and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the
present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia,
[Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little
exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of
East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of
Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The
grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had
obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the
earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have
obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at
the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and
the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet,
at this time, there were two points only in which incipient
English settlements could be discerned; the one on the
northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow
into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest
portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The
settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the
County of Nansemond. ... They had been joined by a number of
Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance
had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas.
... The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of
Cape Fear river; ... those who composed it had come thither
from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to
rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the
assignees of Carolana ever surrendered the charter under which
it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become
vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."
F. X. Martin, History of North Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 5 and 7.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1631.
The Dutch occupation of the Delaware.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1632.
English Conquest and brief occupation of New France.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1632.
AMERICA: A. D. 1632.
The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, and A. D. 1633-1637.
AMERICA: A. D. 1638.
The planting of a Swedish Colony on the Delaware.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.
"The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly
distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the
world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and
exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. ...
After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,
and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous
men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the
purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at
will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was
their market; thither they repaired with their salted and
smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in
exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places
where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered
carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became
known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or
since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.
Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in
couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and
having entire community of property--a condition termed by
them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they
addressed one another. ... A man on joining the fraternity
completely merged his identity. Each member received a
nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his
antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be
a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a
proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to
hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'--as a Benedick
he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' ... Uncouth and lawless
though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now
attaching to their name would never have been merited had it
not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The
hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet
from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race
resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst
dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell
easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others
dragged into slavery. ... Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the
brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a
war of horrible reprisals commenced.
{75}
Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the
buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured
by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the
cruelties of the aggressors. ... The Spaniards, utterly
failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so
short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their
statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned
cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of
subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was
almost extirpated. ... The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard
was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every
saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical
buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,
and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed
the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of
feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only
desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.
... Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the
buccaneers developed into a new association--the freebooters."
C. H. Eden, The West Indies, chapter 3.
"The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the
former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a
name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed
into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in
its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services
could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be
disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and
sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild
cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever
they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding
expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers
were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of
Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the
growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors
appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De
Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies.
During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and
the English were driven out, both from that islet and from
Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands.
Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause.
... In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards,
but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and
in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were
reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the
more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious
among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois,
who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665
with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer
named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in
command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most
notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the
strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing
indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus,
defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the
great and wealthy city of Panama--the largest and richest in
the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The
city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits
of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to
England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for
him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the
buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized
Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured
there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched
themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering
operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast.
Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England
and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France,
brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the
extinction of the buccaneer organization.
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States: Central
America, volume 2, chapter 26-30.
ALSO IN
W. Thornbury, The Buccaneers.
A. O. Exquemelin, History of the Buccaneers.
J. Burney, History of the Buccaneers of Am.
See, also, JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
AMERICA: A. D. 1655.
Submission of the Swedes on the Delaware to the Dutch.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.
AMERICA: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
AMERICA: A. D. 1664.
English conquest of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D.1664.
AMERICA: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.
Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and
La Salle.
Louisiana named and possessed by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.
AMERICA: A. D. 1674.
Final surrender of New Netherland to the English.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
AMERICA: A. D. 1681.
The proprietary grant to William Penn.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D,1681.
AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697.
The first lnter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of
the League of Augsburg).
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.
AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.
The French colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735.
The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
on the Lakes.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.
AMERICA: A. D. 1702.
Union of the two Jerseys as a royal province.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.
The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of
the Spanish Succession).
Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.
AMERICA: A. D. 1713.
Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty
of Utrecht.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE) A. D. 1711-1713.
{76}
AMERICA: A. D. 1729.
End of the proprietary government in North Carolina.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
AMERICA: A. D. 1732.
The colonization of Georgia by General Oglethrope.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of
the Austrian Succession).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1760.
Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.
The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and
Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).
English Conquest of Canada.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
AMERICA: A. D. 1749.
Introduction of negro slavery into Georgia.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:
Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great
French War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany.
Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The Peace of Paris.
Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the
Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great
Britain.
West of the Mississippi and New Orleans to Spain.--Florida by
Spain to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.
Growing discontent of the English Colonies.
The question of taxation.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.
AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769.
Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and
the revolt against it.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768, and 1769.
AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1783.
Independence of the English colonies achieved.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL) to 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
Erection of the Spanish Vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine
Provinces.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Chilean independence achieved.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.
Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American
States.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826,
and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
----------AMERICA: End----------
AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
Linguistic Classification.
In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for
1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director
of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of
the North American aborigines based upon the most recent
investigations. The following is a list of families of speech,
or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:
"Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as
being but part of the Caddoan stock].
Algonquian.
Athapascan.
Attacapan.
Beothukan.
Caddoan.
Chimakuan.
Chimarikan.
Chimmesyan.
Chinookan.
Chitimachan.
Chumashan.
Coahuiltecan.
Copehan.
Costanoan.
Eskimauan.
Esselenian.
Iroquoian.
Kalapooian.
Karankawan.
Keresan.
Kiowan.
Kituanahan.
Koluschan.
Kulanapan.
Kusan.
Lutuamian.
Mariposan.
Moquelumnan.
Muskhogean.
Natchesan.
Palaihnihan.
Piman.
Pujunan.
Quoratean.
Salinan.
Salishan.
Sastean.
Shahaptian.
Shoshonean.
Siouan.
Skittagetan.
Takilman.
Tañoan.
Timuquanan.
Tonikan.
Tonkawan.
Uchean.
Waiilatpuan.
Wakashan.
Washoan.
Weitspekan.
Wishoskan.
Yokonan.
Yanan.
Yukian.
Yuman.
Zufiian."
These families are severally defined in the summary of
information given below, and the relations to them of all
tribes having any historical importance are shown by
cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and
associations, and many tribal names not scientifically
recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that
they have a significance in history and are the subjects of
frequent allusion in literature.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abipones.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abnakis, or Abenaques, or Taranteens.
"The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and
Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. ... We must admit that a large
portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if
not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is
found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by
different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner
of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their
respective native languages. ... The word generally received
is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from
the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the
Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky
commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. ... It
has been difficult for different writers to determine the
number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word
Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the
people of the east or northeast. ... We find that the word
Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the
Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted
with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early
writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New
France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis
always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and
south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any
other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to
Newfoundland. ... The Abnakis had five great villages, two
amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St.
Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in
Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers,
between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the
Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. ... The nation of
the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original
people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind
of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of
a past flourishing age."
E. Vetromile, The Abnaki Indians
(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6).
See, also, below:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
{77}
For some account of the wars of the Abnakis, with the New
England colonies,
See
CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;
and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Absarokas, Upsarokas, or Crows.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acawoios.
See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acolhuas.
See MEXICO, A. D. 1325-1502.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Adais.
[Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]
These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley,
lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission
of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the
Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates
with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre'
[Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all
that remains to us of their language, which according to the
collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so
difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten
words of it. ... A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr.
Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the
discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words
have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he
regards it as a Caddoan dialect."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 45-46.
See preceding page.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Adirondacks.
"This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the
tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the
Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence,
above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th
century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion
to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when
reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who
entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people
Algonquins--a generic appellation, which has been long
employed and come into universal use, among historians and
philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had
preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."
H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5.
See, also, below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Æsopus Indians.
See below: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Agniers.
Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)
bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, volume 1, page 9,
foot-note.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Albaias.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Aleuts.
See below: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Algonquian (Algonkin) Family.
"About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now
know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their
prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah
river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north.
... The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at
some distant day had been derived from the same primitive
tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most
closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the
tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to
the Cree--the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a
genealogical tree of these dialects. ... We may, however,
group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their
relationship. This I do"--in the following list:
"Cree.
Old Algonkin.
Montagnais.
Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,
Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.
Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.
Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo
[the last three named forming, together, the nation of the
Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.
Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.
... All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,
on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the
Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an
identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,
defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they
were collectively known as Wapanachkik--' those of the eastern
region'--which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the
remnant of a tribe in Maine. ... The members of the
confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who
occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site
of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper
on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or
Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between
Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called
Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries
of the Potomac and Patuxent. ... Linguistically, the Mohegans
were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to
those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of
Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent
offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the
course of migration had been eastward. ... The Nanticokes
occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,
except its southern extremity, which appears to have been
under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."
D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends.
chapters 1-2.
"Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated
tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of
the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York,
including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of
the Iroquois Confederacy. ... The Mohegans finally retired
over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the
Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware
river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern
Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and
sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died
in their tracks."
H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5.
{78}
"On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the
Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed
in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what
is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border,
the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The
Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat
less than a third of the native population of New England.
That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were
known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the
Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and
westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua.
The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by
a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or
Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now
New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next
dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name.
Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in
the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's
and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary
race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the
State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts
and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the
Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the
River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were
the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets,
who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The
New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity.
... Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional
effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor.
Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."
J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
"The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e.,
the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first
ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal
races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English
colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The
Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the
Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into
numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name.
The tribes on the east side of the river were generally
Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were
hereditary enemies. ... Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was
occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was
subdivided into various clans. ... Staten Island, on the
opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. ...
Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks;
while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known
'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or
sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. ... To the south
and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the
Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the
Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by
various tribes of the Lenape race. ... The island of the
Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name
(see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the
Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief
village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the
Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the
Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present
counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of
Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans
had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. ...
They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus
Indians."
J. R Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1,
chapter 3
"The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more
extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North
America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky
Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south
at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern
part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian
tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian
neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by
those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the
southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on
the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan
families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern
shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who
were gradually retreating before them to the north. In
Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting
of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early
period had separated from the main body of the tribe in
central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah
River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they
carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until
about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally
driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon
afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee
and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country
stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho,
two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from
their kindred on the north and had forced their way through
hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country
of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado,
thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that
direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of
the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the]
principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy,
Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset,
Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk,
Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa,
Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi,
Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The
present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of
whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the
United States."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 47-48.
ALSO IN
J. W. De Forest, History of the Indians of Connecticut.
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
Americana, volume 2), intro., section 2.
S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races of N. Am., book 2-3.
See, also, below:
DELAWARES; HORIKANS; SHAWANESE; SUSQUEHANNAS; OJIBWAS;
ILLINOIS.
For the Indian wars of New England,
See NEW ENGLAND:
A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);
A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
{79}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Alibamus, or Alabamas.
See below: MUSKHOOEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Alleghans, or Allegewi, or Talligewi.
"The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a
distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is
perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the
country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of
their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams,
which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages.
They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or
Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans.
Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this
word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they
described the principal scene of their residence--namely, the
Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The
word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period;
having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the
country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares.
(Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from
its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the
broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania.
... There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial
plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the
Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the
ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates,
cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These
evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile
table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed
towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and
also, as denoted by recent discoveries, ... of some species of
beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound
builders."
H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the Indian
Tribes, part 5, page 133.
This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that
the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of
the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and
seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of
highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being
identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their
race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived;
while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is
of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies.
According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from
their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them
of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route
of their migrations is being traced by the character of the
mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the
mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois
and Lenape] ... must have been southward, ... and the exit of
the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the
Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to
have followed in reaching their historical locality. ... If
the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that
the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi
from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."
C. Thomas, The Problem of the Ohio Mounds (Bureau of
Ethnology, 1889).
ALSO IN The same,
Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the U. S.
(Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).
J. Heckewelder, Account of the Indian Nations, chapter 1.
See, below:
CHEROKEES, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
also AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Amahuacas.
See below: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Andastés.
See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Andesians.
"The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical
rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of
tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of
Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and
in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them.
Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The
Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the
river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a
mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance
and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their
peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The
Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon,
wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The
Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it
leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The
Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo,
on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most
terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods
between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have
a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of
Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali,
are Christians. ... Their language is the principal one on the
river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called
collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. ... Within
the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On
the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are
distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing.
Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or
Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the
source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros,
or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali
below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian
province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama,
Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the
Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor
James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory
between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type
of the Quichua. ... Among all the Indians of the Provincia del
Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These
people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of
these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are
muscular, active men. ... The Morona are cannibals in the full
sense of the word. ... The Campo, still very little known, is
perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and,
according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least
with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though
James Orton does not think this possible. ... The nearest
neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or
Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy,
are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the
language is wholly different. ... Among the Pano people are
the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are
passing into extinction."
The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 227-231.
{80}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Apache Group [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]
Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the
savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western
portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and
Arizona. ... Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant
raids they are led first in one direction and then in another.
In general terms they may be said to range about as follows:
The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes,
the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting
northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila,
Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language
allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call
themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal
divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños,
Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones,
Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New
Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora,
and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the
Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves,
having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with
which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the
Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of
the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the
head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank
of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the
Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in
the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and
the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio
Hassayampa. ... The Apache country is probably the most desert
of all. ... In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious
Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat
and cold, finds safe retreat. ... The Pueblos ... are nothing
but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."
H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 5.
Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of
the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the
Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It
has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 109.
See, also, below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Apalaches.
"Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none
is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as
an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish
travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay
and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the
great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied
by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found
their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and
from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say,
their own race and place have been but guessed at." The
derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio
vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an
indication of ancient connections with the southern continent,
and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca
dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,'
and the earliest application of the name in the northern
continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme
par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes
(Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by
eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' ... We have ...
found that though no general migration took place from the
continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there
was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not
only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and
Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern
continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida
and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that
their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted
upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this
foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously
stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a
confederation of many nations at one time under the domination
of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany
mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it
included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah
is evident from the fragments we have remaining. ... The
location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont
placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and
Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a
portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by
the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore,
in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah
and Altamaha.' ... According to all the Spanish authorities,
on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between
the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers--yet must not be
confounded with the Apalachicolos. ... They certainly had a
large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain
1,000 warriors. ... I am inclined to believe that these were
different branches of the same confederacy. ... In the
beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the
devastations of the English, French and Creeks. ... About the
time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to
the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here
they had a village numbering about 50 souls."
D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
chapter 2.
See, also, below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Apelousas.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Araicu.
See below: GUCK ON COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arapahoes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Araucanians.
See CHILE.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arawaks, or Arauacas.
See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arecunas.
See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arikaras.
See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Arkansas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Assiniboins.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Athapascan Family.
Chippewyans.
Tinneh.
Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]
"This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a
class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill
river, and north of the source of the fork of the
Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles
of the Pacific Ocean. ... The name is derived, arbitrarily,
from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the
Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of
the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and
Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some
primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin.
... We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied
by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and
65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."
H. R. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the Indian
Tribes, part 5, page 172.
{81}
"The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of
nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living
between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or
Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America;
the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its
tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and
the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to
Copper River."
H. H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States,
chapter 2.
"The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be
divided into two groups. ...
1. Tinneh--Chippewyans of
authors. ... Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans,
Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group
of Indians. ... This great family includes a large number of
American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie
south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong
to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of
North America in a northerly and southerly direction,
principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. ... The
designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has
been accepted by most modern ethnologists. ...
2. T'linkets, which family includes the Yakutats and other
groups.
W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1).
"Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain
family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong,
the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes
slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base,
the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and
endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least,
their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty.
Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and
nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of
civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having
some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is
owing to having captured and adopted the members of more
gifted tribes. ... Agriculture was not practised either in the
north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with
them the inspiration came from other stocks. ... The most
cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said
to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive
agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they
were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their
crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or
acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly
underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving
the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later
acquisition of their artisans."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 69-72.
See, above, APACHE GROUP, and BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Atsinas (Caddoes).
See Note, Appendix E.
See below: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Attacapan Family.
"Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little
is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis
of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by
Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty
information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his
material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was
reduced to 50 men. ... Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words
and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs
considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and
published by Gallatin. ... The above material seems to show
that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except
possibly the Chitimachan."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 57.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Aymaras.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Aztecs.
See below: MAYAS;
also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;
and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE WRITING.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Bakairi.
See below: CARIBS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Balchitas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Bannacks.
See below: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Barbudo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Baré.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Baure.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Beothukan Family.
The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to
have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its
discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk
indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, page 57.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Biloxis.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Blackfeet, or Siksikas.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home
of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika,
which word has this signification. It is derived from their
earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north,
where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their
bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half
a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which
embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina
(Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an
interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the
constellations."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 79.
SEE above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
And, below: FLATHEADS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Blood, or Kenai Indians.
See above: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Botocudos.
See below: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Brulé:
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caddoan Family.
See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;
See, also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cakchiquels.
See below: QUICHES, and MAYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Calusa.
See below: TUMUQUANAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cambas, or Campo, or Campa.
See above: ANDESIANS;
also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cañares.
See ECUADOR.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Canas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Canichanas.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
{82}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caniengas.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cariay.
See below: GUCK OR COCO Group.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caribs and their Kindred.
"The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so
different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them,
and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like
those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to
distinguished attention. ... The traditional accounts of their
origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of
being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and
open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation
which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated
from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains.
The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with
weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning
their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of
time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here,
abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the
Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of
years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which
links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria,
on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from
Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of
Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their
expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all
the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the
southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma.
Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of
that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch
found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which
empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and
other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the
windings of the Cayenne."
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, book 6, chapter 3
(volume 1).
"To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin
of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have
given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are
not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the
imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce
a belief that traces of them would have been found on those
islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives
of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a
similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is
sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous
and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula,
extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout
the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which
still maintain their independency. ... I incline therefore to
the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were
rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from
any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own
traditions referred constantly to Guiana."
B. Edwards, History of British Colonies in the West
Indies, book 1, chapter 2.
"The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis,
originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as
the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired
inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr.
Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting
men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of
that number. ... The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were
formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of
them remains."
H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana, volume 1, chapter 1.
E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, chapter 6.
"Recent researches have shown that the original home of the
stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands
at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is
still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic
form of the Carib tongue."
D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268.
"Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes ...
all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near
Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none
worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according
to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful.
In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for
their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their
features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian
profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little
farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a
lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are
repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are
decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity
prevails."
The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, ed.), page 237.
"The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern
Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at
one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they
were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the
date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated
nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been
from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations
are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay
and Schingu rivers."
D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268-269.
"The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the
Caribs. ... The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are
less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. ... According to
their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper
Demerera] ... from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who
originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by
the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios
occupied their vacant territory. ... The Macusis ... are
supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the
Orinoco. ... As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have
been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The
Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and
taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as
the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of
enslaving them. ... The Arecunas have been accustomed to
descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. ... This
tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the
Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. ... The
Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the
land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them
respecting their early history. ... The Tivitivas, mentioned
by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he
calls Quarawetes."
W. H. Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana,
part 2, chapter 13.
{83}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Caripuna.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cat Nation, or Eries.
See below: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Catawbas, or Kataba.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
also, TIMUQUANAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cayugas.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chancas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chapas, or Chapanecs.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cherokees.
"The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to
students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to
be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known
Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of
some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged
into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."
C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
United States (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, 1883-4).
Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient
"mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley--the Alleghans or
Talligewi of Indian tradition--are set forth by Professor Thomas
in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published
by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and
in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in
Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably
occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of
what is now the United States of America, since the date of
the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation,
or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the
powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of
New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a
very early period [1540] following the discovery of the
American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard,
Fernando de Soto. ... At the time of the English settlement of
the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and
well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters
of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and
Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of
the Tennessee on the north and west. ... In subsequent years,
through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever
advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties
whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their
domain, the location and names of their towns were continually
changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839]
west of the Mississippi. ... This removal turned the Cherokees
back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a
quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the
journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically
different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of
their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of
the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives,
but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished
the zeal and industry of the entire community in its
accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however,
was again characterized by an advance toward a higher
civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the
report of their agent that they are again on the increase in
population. ... With the exception of occasional
drawbacks--the result of civil feuds--the progress of the
nation in education, industry and civilization continued until
the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best
attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls.
The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and
ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked
alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces,
but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional
divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate
waste. ... The war over, and the work of reconstruction
commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished,
heart-broken, and revengeful people. ... To-day their country
is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater
population than they have had at any previous period, except
perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when
those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated
to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have
2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported
by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly
$100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000
can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and
log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches
with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000
acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. ... They
have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that
of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and
beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. ...
The present Cherokee population is of a composite character.
Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees,
Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and
admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee
citizenship."
C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Fifth
Annual Reportt of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).
This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of
the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and
federal governments, from their first treaty with South
Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.--"As
early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that
of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a
connection between them. ... Mr. Hale was the first to give
formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki
to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come
into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful
comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made
by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the
relationship of the two languages."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, page 77.
See Note, Appendix: E.
ALSO IN
S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America, book
4, chapter 13-16.
See, above: ALLEGHANS.
See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's
War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cheyennes, or Sheyennes.
See above; ALGONQUIAN FAMILY
{84}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chibchas.
The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the
Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the
conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the
Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At
that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the
autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were
well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous
antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer
speak the well-developed and musical language of their
forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only
be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the
languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota,
and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the
celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."
The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor)
volume 6, page 215.
"As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the
finest on the continent."
D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 272.
See, also, COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chicasas.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chichimecs.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chimakuan Family.
"The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the
largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their
warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and
when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70
individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges
on Port Townsend Bay."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 62.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chimarikan Family.
"According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as
known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe,
living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the
Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch
up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are
said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom
they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival
of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 63.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chinantecs.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chinookan Family.
"The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its
mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook]
nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River,
and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. ... The
position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as
at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the
great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they
possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and
the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds,
and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."
G. Gibbs, Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon
(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
page 164.
See, also, below: FLATHEADS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chippewas.
See below: OJIBWAS;
and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chippewyans.
See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Choctaws.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chontals and Popolocas.
"According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in
Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family
exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means
simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people
other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the
Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca,
Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is
'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one
speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have
also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers,
with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to
have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz,
Mechoacan and Guatemala."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 146-153.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chontaquiros.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Chumashan Family.
"Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa
Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been
known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which
seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by
Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.:
Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has
no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the
fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the
dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely
known than any of the others."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 67.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cliff-dwellers.
See AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coahuiltecan Family.
"Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This
family appears to have included numerous tribes in
southwestern Texas and in Mexico. ... A few Indians still
survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in
1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the
Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las
Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 68.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coajiro, or Guajira.
"An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the
Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same
name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all
sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is
known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the
well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many
respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New
Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani
on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with
chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the
other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the
Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial
foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their
land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in
constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know
how to ride excellently. ... They have numerous herds of
cattle. ... They follow agriculture a little."
The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, page 243.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cochibo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cochiquima.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coco Group.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Coconoons.
See below: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cofan.
See above: ANDESIANS.
{85}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Collas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Comanches.
See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,
and KIOWAN FAMILY;
and above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Conestogas.
See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Conibo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Conoys.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Copehan Family.
"The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north
by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian
families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan,
Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of
San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 69.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Costanoan Family.
"Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this
group name Latham included five tribes ... which were under
the supervision of the Mission Dolores. ... The territory of
the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point
near the southern end of Monterey Bay. ... The surviving
Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now
scattered over several counties and probably do not number,
all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr.
Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the
towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
p, 71.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Creek Confederacy, Creek Wars.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL);
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Crees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Croatans,
See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Crows (Upsarokas, or Absarokas).
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cuatos.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cunimaré.
See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Cuyriri or Kiriri.
See below: GUCK on Coco GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Dakotas, or Dacotahs, or Dahcotas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Delawares, or Lenape.
"The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a
as in father, é as a in mate). ... The Lenape were divided
into three sub-tribes:
1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.
2. The Unami or Wonameys.
3. The Unalachtigo.
No explanation of these designations will be
found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From
investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my
request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are
wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these
sub-tribes on the Delaware river. ... The Minsi lived in the
mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above
the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. ... The Unamis'
territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended
from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their
southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the
land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did
not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737
that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter
for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey
totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares
near where Wilmington now stands."
D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and Their Legends,
chapter 3.
"At the ... time when
William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been
subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well
known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the
Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and
placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not
even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the
Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William
Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,
accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the
Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. ...
The use of arms, though from very different causes, was
equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus
the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the
British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace
and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years
between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the
first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the
colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands
might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at
last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without
lands of their own, and therefore without means of
subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters
of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to
their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on
the Juniata they were encroached upon. ... Under those
circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west
of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,
obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,
the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the
Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to
Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The
Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the
French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join
in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier
settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by
the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made
with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put
an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares
removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. ...
The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and
importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who
were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven
Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for
some years the progress of the British and American arms.
Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans
during the War of Independence, the main body, together with
all the western nations made common cause with the British.
And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,
they were again at the head of the western confederacy in
their last struggle for independence. Placed by their
geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,
during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last
moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The
decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the
confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by
the treaty of Greenville of 1795."
{86}
After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on
White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally
ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there
were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number ... had
previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain
the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].
Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in
an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.
Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,
and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united
with the Senecas and some other tribes."
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.
See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY:
below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768;
and MORAVIAN BRETHREN;
and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"
see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Eries.
See below: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Eskimauan Family.
"Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo
are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and
of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including
Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the
Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as
about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the
western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of
Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier
are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians,
named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the
sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic
America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands.
Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the
inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from
the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show
a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The
Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal
branch of the Eskimo nation. ... As regards their northern
limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their
habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic
explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of
them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown
to us. ... On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring
nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at
an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest
investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist
between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would
sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from
the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo
decidedly resemble their American neighbours. ... With regard
to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American
nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure.
Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very
remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the
language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group.
... According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were
already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year
1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the
American continent. ... Between the years 1000 and 1300 they
do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on
the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies
were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware
of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in
fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an
expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the
abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists.
... About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from
the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten
in the mother country. ... The features of the natives in the
Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the
Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left
the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or
culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland
was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited
exclusively by Eskimo."
H. Rink, Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo,
introduction and chapter 6.
H. Rink, The Eskimo tribes.
"In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock
collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their
coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general
term to designate a very well-defined race. ...The Orarians
are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits,
comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the
Aleuts."
W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest (Contributed
to North American Ethnology, volume 1), part 1.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Esselenian Family.
"The present family was included by Latham in the
heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. ... The term
Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel
languages, leaving the present family ... [to be] called
Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of
which it is composed. ... The tribe or tribes composing this
family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from
Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia
Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 75-76.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Etchemins.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Eurocs, or Yuroks.
See below: MODOCS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Five Nations.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Flatheads (Salishan Family).
See Note, Appendix E.
"The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though,
says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so
distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so
general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist.
of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. ... is: 'The
Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under
the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."
M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio,
page 32.
"The Salish ... are distinctively known as Flatheads, though
the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107.
"In ... early times the hunters and trappers could not
discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received
their respective designations, for the feet of the former are
no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body,
while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of
rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that
real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that
they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the
custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of
the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners
or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks,
Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of
flattening their heads prevails among them all."
P. Ronan, Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian
Nation, page 17.
In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan
Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, page 102.
{87}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Fox Indians.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and below, SACS, &c.
For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians at Detroit in
1712,
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.
For an account of the Black Hawk War,
See Illinois: A. D. 1832.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Fuegians.
See below: PATAGONIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Gausarapos or Guuchies.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ges Tribes.
See below: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).
See Note, Appendix E.
See below: HIDATSA;
also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guaicarus.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guajira.
See above: COAJIRO.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guanas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guarani.
See below: TUPI.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guayanas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guck or Coco Group.
An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and
north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been
called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for
the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very
important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a
large number of tribes. ... We need enumerate but few. The
Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.),
number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are
wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the
mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on
the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who
have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most
tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord
who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL
DORADO]. ... The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio
Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay.
Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay,
belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which,
though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the
Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas
show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western
borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among
them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found
on the northwest coast of North America. ... In the same
district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact
that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South
America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses
of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about
120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band
of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter,
however, in its own room. ... Finally, complex tribes of the
most different nationality are comprehended under names which
indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly
used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and
Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira
River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify
'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related
that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for
preservation. ... Formerly the Mura ... were greatly feared;
this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost
entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the
Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. ... The Mura are the
gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other
tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as
pariahs. ... Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are
also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous
tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know
nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."
The Standard Natural History
(J. S. Kingsley, ed.), volume 6, pages 245-248.
ALSO IN F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
chapter 2 and 6.
H. W. Bates, A Naturalist on the River Amazons,
chapter 7-13.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Guuchies.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Hackinsacks.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Haidas.
See below: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Grosventres
See Note, Appendix E.
"The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of
the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent
village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the
waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in
Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this
tribe is ... intimately connected with that of the politically
allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name,
Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the
early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was
applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in
language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west
of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished
from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and
Grosventres of the Prairie. ... Edward Umfreville, who traded
on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, ... remarks: ...
'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or
Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and
as well made as any tribe whatever.' ... In the works of many
travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is
spelled in various ways. ... This, although a Hidatsa word, is
the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the
Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed
the water.' ... Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife
River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom
Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the
name "now generally used by this people to designate
themselves."
W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa
Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and
Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7).
See also, below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
{88}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Hitchitis.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Horikans.
North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the
Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present
counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe
of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended
from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green
Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake
George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now
well bear their sonorous name."
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,
page 77.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huamaboya.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huancas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huastecs.
See below: MAYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Huecos, or Wacos.
See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Humas, or Oumas.
See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Hupas.
See Note, Appendix E.
See below: MODOCS, &c.
Hurons, or Wyandots.
Neutral Nation.
Eries.
"The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was
occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the
Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe
called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation,
dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of
the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while
the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war
between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the
northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern
flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the
Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000
souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The
Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from
their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and
superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and
social customs, they were closely assimilated to their
brethren of the Five Nations. ... Like the Five Nations, the
Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they
bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to
surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and
this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their
country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was
rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for
though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point
of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of
the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in
the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the
Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all
within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in
panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed.
Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the
village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still
remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while
others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought
an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern
lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters,
they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake
Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of
Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to
Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where,
by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon
acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The
ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the
Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an
exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon
found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by
all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a
few years their destruction as a nation was complete."
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.
F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 1.
"The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of
the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of
Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the
Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the
Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but
principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds
extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake
Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. ... They are
first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the
Hurons in 1615 ... but he was unable to visit their territory.
... The peace which this peculiar people had so long
maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some
jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated
in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral
Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our
city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year,
and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic
were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of
the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. ... The
survivors were adopted by their conquerors. .... A long period
intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and
the permanent occupation of their country by the
Senecas,"--which latter event occurred after the expulsion of
the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under
General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They
never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the
Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks
and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo
Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years
before. ... It has been assumed by many writers that the
Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter,
according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the
western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by
the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them
as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one
of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed
nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."
O. H. Marshall, The Niagara Frontier, pages 5-8, and
foot-note.
"Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of
Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river,
lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by
the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a
member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful
lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their
most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic
stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that
interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the
holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the
totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the
abundance of that mammal within their territory."
W. C. Bryant, Interesting Archaeological Studies in and
about Buffalo, page 12.
{89}
Mr. Schoolcraft either identifies or confuses the Eries and
the Neutral Nation.
H. R. Schoolcraft, Sketch of the History of the Ancient
Eries (Information Respecting the Indian Tribes, part 4. p.
197).
ALSO IN
J. G. Shea, Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation
(same, part 4, page 204).-
D. Wilson, The Huron-Iroquois of Canada (Trans. Royal
Society of Canada, 1884).
P. D. Clarke, Origin and Traditional History of the
Wyandottes.
W. Ketchum, History of Buffalo, volume 1, chapter 1-2.
N. B. Craig. The Olden Time, volume 1, page 225.
See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
Also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
1634-1652; 1640-1700.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Illinois and Miamis.
"Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and
descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley
chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on
the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in
the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their
name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.
Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis
and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the
repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in
particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the
population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the
early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter
of the eighteenth century,
to a few small villages."
F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.
See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and below: SACS, &c.;
also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Incas, or Yncas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Innuits.
See above: ESKIMAUAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iowas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy.
Iroquoian Family.
"At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or
nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to
European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and
uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful
region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the
Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas--as they
should properly be called--possessed the Mohawk River, and
covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of
large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which,
hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best
boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas
the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their
name. ... West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the
central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the
League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles.
together with the common outlet of this inland lake system,
the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still
proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the
long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were
clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the
lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and
dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered
the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called
Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes
of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni,
or League of United Households, who were destined to become
for a time the most notable and powerful community among the
native tribes of North America. The region which has been
described was not, however, the original seat of those nations.
They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to
ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised
the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation,
the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the
Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family
occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching
from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all
clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the
fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which
flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all
these tribes showed a close affinity. ... The evidence of
language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show
that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and
the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes,
Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St.
Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the
first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at
Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec.
... As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive
swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south.
As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with
whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most
dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a
fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere
surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent
traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed,
these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and
united their forces in an alliance against a common and
formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the
confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized
'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name
to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast
earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the
perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which
lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow
and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors
of the conquered people fled southward. ... The time which has
elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously
estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period
about a thousand years before the present day. It was
apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the
Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves
over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open
to their occupancy."
H. Hale, Introduction to Iroquois Book of Rites.
{90}
After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the
French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the
Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred
which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able
to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled
with France for the mastery of the North American continent,
and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more
than to any other single cause. England still retained the
faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came
to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except
the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the
Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the
political transaction of the League were substantially closed.
This was, in effect, the termination of their political
existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended
over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they
became dependent nations. During the progress of the
Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to
Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand
River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston,
where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by
the British government. ... The policy of the State of New York
[toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane.
Although their country, with the exception of that of the
Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event
of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the
rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the
country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the
Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from
time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a
reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of
them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to
Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to
the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have
remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire ...
near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas
"still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga,
with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance.
About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party
are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have
removed to the west. ... In the brief space of twelve years
after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga
county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted
and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to
the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they
finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them
removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still
another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio,
from whence they were removed by government, a few years
since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi.
About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York.
... The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory,
finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of
Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. ... The
residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small
reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany,
which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser
counties of the State."
L. H. Morgan, The League of the Iroquois,
book 1, chapter 1.
"The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and
occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With
few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the
native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of
the entire State."
Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian
Problem of the State of New York 1889.
H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois.
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.
C. Colden, History of the Five Indian Nations.
J. Fiske, Discovery of America, chapter 1.
In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became
Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from N.
Carolina.
See below: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
On the relationship between the Iroquois and the Cherokees,
See above: CHEROKEES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy.
Their Name.
"The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are
doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the
explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct.
The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been
formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which
these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which,
when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly
uttered is an exclamation of joy. ... But ... Champlain had
learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other
Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It
is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the
Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois
tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the
latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe,
and also a piece of tobacco,--and, in its verbal form, to
smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in
the Book of Rites,--denighroghkwayen,--'let us two smoke
together.' ... In the indeterminate form the verb becomes
'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might
be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or,
briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation
('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also
by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates,
noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold.
The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of
this plant, of which they had a choice variety."
H. Hale, Iroquois Book of Rites, appendix, note A.
Iroquois Confederacy.
Their conquests and wide dominion.
"The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the
Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was
first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to
resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its
establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although
the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved
by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer
to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where
the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree
upon the terms and principles of the compact. ... After the
formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power
and influence. ... With the first consciousness of rising
power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the
Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a
nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first
struggle for the ascendancy.
{91}
... At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation
[the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their
original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as
Quebec. ... A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the
establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,
in 1615. ... Friendly relations were established between the
Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption
until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson
to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up
between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for
European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the
use of which they were afterwards destined to become so
expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of
friendship. ... With the possession of fire-arms commenced not
only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the
Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the
Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a
permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly
exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side
of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus
possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,
and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they
had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the
Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole
country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the
north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa
river, near Montreal. ... They also made constant inroads upon
the New England Indians. ... In 1680, the Senecas with 600
warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders
of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. ...
At various times, both before and after this period, the
Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the
Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. ... For about a
century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois
were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close
of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal
subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the
territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and
western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England
States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these
nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a
constant supervision. If any of them became involved in
domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them
and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their
future conduct."
L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.
"Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America,
and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the
Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the
dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of
their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have
mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and
dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful
of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly
scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one
might boast a more numerous population than all the five
united tribes."
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.
Their wars with the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.
Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1652;
also, above, HURONS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.
Surrenders and conveyances to the English.
See
NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;
VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.
Their part in the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Iroquois Tribes of the South.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its
tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most
southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low
country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and
Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended
beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in
Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far
north as James River. ... Lawson, in his account of the North
Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and
the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year
1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways
inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were
principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices
of the Tuteloes. ... It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways
had preserved their independence and their numbers later than
the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they
had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated
from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they
are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in
possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,
which had been at an early date reserved for them. ... The
Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North
Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in
that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois
tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and
the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200
warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked
the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a
fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants
south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in
forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five
Nations. This could not have been given without involving the
confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras
were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly
of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was
again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the
northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the
Tuscaroras. ... Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the
Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell
them as slaves.
{92}
The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on
the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made
peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of
the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year
1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to
the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since
shared their fate."
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.
ALSO IN
J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 3.
See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Itocos.
See above: CHIBCHAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Itonamos, or Itonomos.
See above: ANDESIANS;
also BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Jivara, or Jivaro.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kah-kwas.
See above: HURONS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kalapooian Family.
"Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the
Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the
Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources
of the Willamat River.'... The tribes of the Kalapooian family
inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the
falls."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 81.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kanawhas, or Ganawese.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kansas, or Kaws.
See below: SIOUAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kapohn.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Karankawan Family.
"The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according
to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St.
Bernard (Matagorda Bay). ... In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a
Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly
lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of
twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language
he remembered. The vocabulary ... such as it is, represents
all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary
the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa
but from all others."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 82.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Karoks, or Cahrocs.
See below: MODOCS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kaskaskias.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kaus, or Kwokwoos.
See below: KUSAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kaws, or Kansas.
See below: SIOUAN.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kenai, or Blood Indians.
See above: BLACKFEET.
See Note, Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Keresan Family.
"The ... pueblos of Keresan stock ... are situated in New
Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small
western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also
are tributaries of the Rio Grande."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 83.
See PUEBLO.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kikapoos.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kiowan Family.
"Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning
'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author
who first formally separated this family appears to have been
Turner. ... Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary
furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion
expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language
is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting
that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other
family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long
intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct
from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and
other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa
tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the
Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to
determine their pristine home. ... Pope definitely locates the
Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its
tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in
substantial accord with the statements of other writers of
about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on
the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they
appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 84.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kiriri, Cuyriri.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kitunahan Family.
"This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,
Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,
a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 85.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Klamaths.
See below: MODOCS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Koluschan Family.
"Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly,
kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped
lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the
Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit
the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th
degree of north latitude.'"
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 86.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kulanapan Family.
"The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the
west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and
Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the
Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega
Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near
Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 88.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kusan Family:
"The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as
living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the
Clamet."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 89.
See Note, Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Kwokwoos.
See above: KUSAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Lenape.
See above: DELAWARES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Machicuis.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Macushi.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Manaos.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mandans, or Mandanes.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Manhattans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Manioto, or Mayno.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mapochins.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Maranha.
See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Maricopas.
See below: PUEBLOS.
{93}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mariposan Family.
"Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a
county in California and subsequently taken for the family
name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of
the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of
Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above
name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to
the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut.
As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound
basis, his name is here restored."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 90.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mascoutins, or Mascontens,
See below: SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Massachusetts,
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mataguayas.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mayas.
"In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a
mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten
days' journey in a canoe. ... During his fourth voyage
(1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba,
he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously
dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were
merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first
mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of
the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name
was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the
similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that
no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. ... Maya was
the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper
name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single
province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it
had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about
a century before, when this whole district was united under
one government. ... Whatever the primitive meaning and first
application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify
specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended
sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood
to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related
dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the
Maya proper. ... The total number of Indians of pure blood
speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite
200,000, most of them in the political limits of the
department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000
of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in
daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American
languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its
ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and
supplant their native speech. ... The Mayas did not claim to
be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by
the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership
of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous
immigration from the West, which was connected with the
history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these
appears to be wholly mythical. ... The second tradition
deserves more attention from the historian. ... It cannot be
denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the
Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to
have migrated from the north or west from some part of the
present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional
importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican
Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz,
of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The
idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great
migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south.
Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most
closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest
Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient
traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two
partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though
differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a
community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find
these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the
Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan
Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. ... The annals of
the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."
D. G. Brinton, The Maya Chronicles, introduction.
"Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala,
Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities
have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and
magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a
detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this
work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less
unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear
hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character;
in other respects they resemble each other more than they
resemble the Aztec ruins--or even other and apparently later
works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear
evident marks of great antiquity. ... I deem the grounds
sufficient ... for accepting this Central American
civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an
extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the
peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and
applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has
claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of
the linguistic family mentioned. ... There are no data by
which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its
downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and
foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by
Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants
of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some
remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although
some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of
others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on
the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable
material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the
16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an
advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language
survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed
by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed
materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not
likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later
than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been
inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its
highest power at a date preceding rather than following the
Christian era."
H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 2, chapter 2; volume 4, ch, 3-6;
volume 5, chapter 11-13.
{94}
ALSO IN
Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America, chapter 6-7.
J. L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and
Travel in Central America, &c.
B. M. Norman, Rambles in Yucatan.
D. Charnay, Ancient Cities of the New World.
See, also, MEXICO: ANCIENT, and AZTEC AND AND MAYA
PICTURE-WRITING.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mayoruna, or Barbudo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Menominees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Metöacs.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Miamis, or Twightwees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Micmacs.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mingoes.
"The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were
known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is
said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,'
meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed
the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country
of the Delawares."
H. Hale, The Iroquois Book of Rites,
appendix, note. A.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minneconjou.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minnetarees.
See above: HIDATSA;
and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
See Note, Appendix E. 9.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minquas.
See below: SUSQUEHANNAS;
and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Minsis, Munsees, or Minisinks.
See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Miranha.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Missouris.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mixes.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mixtecs.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mocovis.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern
California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River,
south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the
river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs,
on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to
the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the
Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast;
the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above
the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the
Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah
Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath;
numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay
north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the
Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The
Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central
and southern tribes."
H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, volume
1, ch, 4.
"On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the
Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean,
respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of
the river.' ... The Karok are probably the finest tribe in
California. ... Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the
home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest
race in all that region, and they even excel them in their
statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute
force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are
the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their
wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended
diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole ...
are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race,
but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for
keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or
deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold
against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including
that arm so awful to savages--the artillery--was almost the
only feature that lent respectability to their wretched
tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."
S. Powers, Tribes of California (Contributions to N. A.
Ethnology, volume 3), chapter 1, 7, and 27.
"The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies
upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the
Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call
the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which
lies in Northern California. ... The main seat of the Modoc
people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of
Little Klamath Lake. ... The two main bodies forming the Klamath
people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc
Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as
many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and
form the northern chieftaincy. ... The Klamath people possess
no historic traditions going further back in time than a
century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law
prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased
individual by using his name. ... Our present knowledge does
not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically
with any of the other languages compared, but ... it stands as
a linguistic family for itself."
A. S. Gatschet, The Klamath Indians (Contributions to N.
A. Ethnology, volume 2, part 1).
In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and
Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian
Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the
Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River
Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct
family named the Palaihnihan Family.
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 89 and 97.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mohaves (Mojaves).
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mohawks.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mohegans, or Mahicans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and below: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
Montagnais.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Montauks.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Moquelumnan Family.
"Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in
Calaveras County, California. ... It was not until 1856 that
the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth
by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers
several vocabularies representing different languages and
dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the
Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented
by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme
paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's
Beiträge. ... The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory
bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the
Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the
west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip
on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this
family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San
Francisco Bay."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 92-93.
{95}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Moquis.
See below: PUEBLOS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Morona.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Moxos, or Mojos.
See above: ANDESIANS;
also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mundrucu.
See below: TUPI.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Munsees.
See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also MANHATTAN ISLAND.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Mura.
See above: GUCK Ort Coco GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Muskhogean, or Maskoki Family.
"Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the
Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding
position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them,
but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain
degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki
one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their
ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these
tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the
Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from
the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short
intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent
Indian communities, and also among each other. ... The
irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused
serious difficulties to the government of the English and
French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their
adhesion between the French and the English cause. The
American government overcame their opposition easily whenever
a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an
exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how
to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the
stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were
constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly
conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of
folk lore. ... The only characteristic by which a subdivision
of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following
their ancient topographic location from east to west, we
obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki
proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on
Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From
these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the
Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw
community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern
division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the
Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the
Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct
Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the
Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch,
comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to
them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its
northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw]
branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the
middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa,
Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became
separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a
community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the
fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. ...
Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of
the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural,
Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek
Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee,
and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced
by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. ... The accent
is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None
of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own
language. ... Why did the English colonists call them Creek
Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki
country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a
number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi
and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the
inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were
called Creeks from an early time. ... In the southern part of
the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of
Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and
are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in
whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians,
Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and
Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with
the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh
Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in
the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered
remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red
River."
A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
volume 1, part 1.
"The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the
[Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages
altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a
residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the
banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one
hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east
of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they
consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the
country. They may have been the same nation which is called
Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. ... The
four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the
War Department ... consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.:
The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas
(5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees,
26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000.
The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to
them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of
that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of
what may be allotted to the Chicasas."
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
Americana, volume 2), section 3.
See below: SEMINOLES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Musquito, or Mosquito Indians.
"That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived
its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects,
but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the
shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people,
short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut
features, and small straight noses--not at all negroid,
except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number
about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the
efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to
writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are
one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 162.
See, also, NICARAGUA: A. D., 1850.
{96}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nahuas.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nanticokes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Napo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Narragansetts.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Natchesan Family.
When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley,
they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of
country that now surrounds the city which bears their name.
"By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established
that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around
them less by their customs and the degree of their
civilization than by their language, which, as far as
comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity
with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too
readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely
received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even
to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and
inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached
themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."
G. Bancroft, History of the United States
(Author's last revision), volume 2, page 97.
"Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the
early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for
their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a
semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history.
We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in
their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and
bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and
cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring
tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied--the
most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the
Mississippi--and the influence of its attractions in
substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence
of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one
apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for
his pillow. ... Their government was an absolute despotism.
The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property,
and their lives. ... The Natchez consisted exclusively of two
classes--the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common
people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes
understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their
customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies
of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and
witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father
Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of
civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or
rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The
house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow
bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of
this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative
writers as the peer of Montezuma!"
J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi, volume 1, chapter 4.
In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions,
planned and executed a general massacre of the French within
their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually
exterminated within the following two years.
C. Gayarre, Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance,
2d series, lecture 3 and 5.
"The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the
well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the
Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years
ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then
inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was
the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of
Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their
dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined
the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in
Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic
relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long
been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 96.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Natchitoches;
See Note, Appendix E.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nausets.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Navajos.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, and APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Neutral Nation.
See above: HURONS, &c.;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nez Percés, or Sahaptins.
"The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major
Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes,
occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its
affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in
contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus
holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern
and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the
latter, they made good use of it."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107.
ALSO IN
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the
Bureau of Ethnology, page 106.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Niniquiquilas.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nipmucs, or Nipnets.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678
(KING PHILIP'S WAR).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nootkas.
See below: WAKASHAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nottoways.
See above: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Nyantics.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ogalalas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ojibwas, or Chippewas.
"The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and
their friends the Ottawas,--the latter of whom were fugitives
from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the
Iroquois,--were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were
closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The
Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the
basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In
their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at
length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the
Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the
outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once
encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they
were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern
Algonquin tribes."
F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.
{97}
"The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met
with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest
to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de
Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance.
M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this
term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little
difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report,
in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first
recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of
Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the
island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded
by them at former periods to the French. ... The Chippewas are
conceded, by writers on American philology ... to speak one of
the purest forms of the Algonquin."
H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the History,
Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, part 5, p.
142.
ALSO IN
G. Copway, The Ojibway Nation.
J. G. Kohl, Kitchi-gami.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR:
and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Omahas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Oneidas.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
Onondagas.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Orejones.
See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Osages.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Otoes, or Ottoes.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Otomis.
"According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest
owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at
the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this
portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States
of Queretaro and Guanajuato. ... The Otomis are below the
average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly
dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes
slightly oblique."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 135.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ottawas.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Pacaguara.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pacamora.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pamlicoes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pampas Tribes.
"The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis
by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches
[or Puelts--that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these,
under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground,
between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The
Querandis ... were the great opponents to settlement of the
Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. ... The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians
[see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and
from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting
stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the
Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches,
and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches
horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South
American races. ... Of the Guayanas horde there were several
tribes--independent of each other, and speaking different
idioms, although having the same title of race. Their
territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents
into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched
over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They
were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish
invaders. ... The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21°
South latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in
number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies
dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo,
or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east
into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. ... The Cuatos lived
inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and
constituted a very small tribe. ... The Orejones dwelt on the
eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San
Fernando--close to the western side of Paraguay river. ...
Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of
Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest
which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward
from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the
province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. ... The Guanas Indians were
divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there
was a particular and different name. They lived between 20°
and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay,
and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter
crossed the last-named river in 1673. ... The Albaias and
Payaguas Indians ... in former times, were the chief tribes of
the Paraguay territory. ... The Albaias were styled Machicuis
and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards'
arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the
river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into
a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. ... The
joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend
their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side
of Paraguay river. ... The Albaias were a very tall and
muscular race of people. ... The Payagua Indians, before and
up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were
sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. ... The
Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and
subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which
their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or
trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after
the conquest. ... The Tobas, who have also the titles of
Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the
Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of
the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of
these there are some remains in the present day. ... The
Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. ... The
Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite,
lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the
tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected
the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly
opposite Goya, in 1748."
T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 6-7.
{98}
"The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province
Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no
fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their
neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every
direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their
enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey
advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo,
which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the
last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war
carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards ... and, migrating
towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held
by the Calchaquis. ... From what region their ancestors came
there is no room for conjecture."
M. Dobrizhoffer, Account of the Abipones, volume 2, chapter 1.
"The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of
a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in
winter cover themselves with skins. ... They paint themselves
all over with different colours."
Father Charlevoix, History of Paraguay,
book 7 (volume 1).
ALSO IN
The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 256-262.
See, also, below: TUPI.--GUARANI.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pampticokes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pano.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Papagos.
See below: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Parawianas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pascogoulas.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Passé.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Patagonians and Fuegians.
"The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken
(men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to
as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to
the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans
physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of
them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and
built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and
have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a
sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro.
... On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell
three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of
culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle
Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east
of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west.
... The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris,
that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the
American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied
the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the
Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members.
This interesting theory demands still further evidence before
it can be accepted."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 327-332.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pawnee Family (named "Caddoan" by Major Powell).
"The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been
known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least
understood of the important tribes of the West. In both
respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During
recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have
evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the
central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains
still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation
between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the
family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos
or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts
or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern
or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase
the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where
Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was
upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they
claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence
from time immemorial. ... They have a tradition that they are
the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have
sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. ...
The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve
secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government.
... In many respects, their method of building lodges, their
equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they
quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however,
with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned,
is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. ... The name Pawnee is
most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to
have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate
their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the
most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came
naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word
in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee
Picts) and the Arikaras. ... The true Pawnee territory till as
late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara
south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably
beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian.
... On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in
eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes,
Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending
as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big
Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as
several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares,
Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living
under the guardianship of the United States. ... On the west
their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may
perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake
River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence
south to the Arkansas. ... It is not to be supposed, however,
that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this
territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by
various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages,
Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three
originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their
hostility. ... In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United
States their claim upon all the above described territory
lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining
territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15
wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit
beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and
removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the
Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their
junction."
J. B. Dunbar, The Pawnee Indians (Magazine of American
History, April, 1880, v.4).
ALSO IN
G. B. Grinnell, Pawnee Hero Stories.
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 95-97.
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, page 59.
See, also, above: ADAIS and BLACKFEET.
{99}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Payaguas.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pehuelches, or Puelts.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Penacooks, or Pawtucket Indians.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Peorias.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pequots.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
and below: SHAWANESE;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piankishaws.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piegans.
See above: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piman Family.
"Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family
is included within the United States, the greater portion
being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California.
The family is represented in the United States by three
tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have
lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila
River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied
the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila,
but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more
extensive and extends to the south across the border."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 98-99.
See below: PUEBLOS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pimenteiras.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piru.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pit River Indians.
See above: MODOCS (KLAMATHS), &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Piutes.
See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pokanokets, or Wampanoags.
See above:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING
PHILIP'S WAR).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Ponkas, or Puncas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Popolocas.
See above: CHONTALS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pottawatomies.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, OJIBWAS, and SACS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Powhatan Confederacy.
"At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has
been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians
within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit
of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were
about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors.
The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was
occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a
confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and
acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the
rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as
far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his
History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects
to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of
savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the
superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank
of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and
power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where
Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the
north side of York River, within the present county of
Gloucester. ... Besides the large confederacy of which
Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that
was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs,
consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between
the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five
tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and
James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to
these, many scattering and independent tribes."
G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith
(Library of Am. Biog.), chapter 4.
"The English invested savage life with all the
dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or
'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom,
his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his
cabins were his various seats of residence. ... In his younger
days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was
the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his
dominions had been extended. ... The name of his nation and
the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He
himself possessed several names."
E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye, Pocahontas, chapter 3.
ALSO IN
Captain John Smith, Description of Virginia, and General
Historie of Virginia. (Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and
360).
See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Puans.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pueblos.
"The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples
of New Mexico and Arizona ... I call the Pueblos, or
Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name
given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as
were found, when first discovered, permanently located in
comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term
Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks
of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between
latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is
employed as a general appellation for this division, it will
be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular
sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos
proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern
Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower
Gila river,--the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate
tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit
Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'
yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural
nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of
this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day ...
in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which
prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado
in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers
visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of
Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches
were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied
by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,
from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New
Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was
given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the
Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the
present day were mentioned in the reports of the early
expeditions by their present names.
{100}
... The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are
the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are
situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are
planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by
artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of
the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,
a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a
Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three
or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about
150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories
of from eight to nine feet each in height. ... The stories are
built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,
decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of
terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both
sides of the building; in others they face only towards the
outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These
terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three
or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants
of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story
beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner
communication with one another, the only means of mounting to
them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along
the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at
pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The
outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely
solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,
in some towns, a few loopholes. ... To enter the rooms on the
ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to
the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door
in the floor by another ladder on the inside. ... The several
stories of these huge structures are divided into
multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are
apportioned to the several families of the tribe."
H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 5.
"There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New
Mexico. ... We cannot ... refuse to adopt the views of General
Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo
of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of
the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of
Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui
district, and Acuco with Acoma."
A. F. Bandelier, Historical Introduction to Studies
among the Sedentary Indians of N. Mexico (Papers of the
Archœology Institute of America: American Series,
volume 1).
ALSO IN
J. H. Simpson, The March of Coronado.
L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the Am.
Aborigines (Contributions to N. Am. Ethnology, volume 4),
chapter 6.
F. H. Cushing, My Adventures in Zuñi
(Century, volume 3-4).
F. H. Cushing, Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology (1882-83), pages 473-480.
F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
chapter 10.
See, also, AMERICA, PREHISTORIC,
and above: PIMAN FAMILY and KERESAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Pujunan Family.
"The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham:
Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of
Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a
tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which,
upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana,
all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These
races resembled one another in every respect but language.'
... The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by
Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their
distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento
in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth,
and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit
River."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 99-100.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Puncas, or Ponkas.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY:
and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Purumancians.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quapaws.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quelches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Querandis, or Pehuelches, or Puelts.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quiches.--Cakchiquels.
"Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the
nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a
tongue, which from its principal members has been called the
Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated
that half a million persons use these dialects. They are
scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory,
and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf
of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan'
dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of
Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the
Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and
are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much
as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects.
... The civilization of these people was such that they used
various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record
and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or
less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The
most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of
Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an
unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was
familiar with the ancient records."
D. G. Brinton, Essays of an Americanist, page 104.
ALSO IN,
D. G. Brinton, Annals of the Cakchiquels.
H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
chapter 11.
See, also, above: MAYAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quichuas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quijo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Quoratean Family.
"The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a
range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of
the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its
sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the
Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 101.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Rapid Indians.
A name applied by various writers to the Arapahoes, and other
tribes.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Raritans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Remo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Rogue River Indians.
See above: MODOCS, ETC.
See Note, Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Rucanas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sabaja.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
{101}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sacs (Sauks), Foxes, etc.
"The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies,
so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name
is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The
French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in
the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same
language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though
belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was
common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called
Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a
distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed
by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that
the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a
prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate
'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted
principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture
of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt
the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay
south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois
River. ... When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had
their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox
River, and generally farther east than the country which they
lately occupied. ... By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and
Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of ...
the Mississippi. ... The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809
to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States.
They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and
the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the
mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. ... The
territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be
generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the
Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the
country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the
country bordering on the Ohio."
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.
The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but
almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies
or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for
treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier
days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers],
but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is
very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct
tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the
disappearance of the name will not be strange."
J. G. Shea, Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins
(Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,
part 4, page 245).
See above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
For an account of the Black Hawk War
See Illinois, A. D. 1832.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sahaptins.
See above: NEZ PERCÉS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Salinan Family.
This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San
Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,
Monterey County, California.
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 101.
See ESSELENIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Salishan Family.
See above: FLATHEADS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sanhikans, or Mincees.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sans Arcs.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Santees.
See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
See Note. Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sarcee (Tinneh).
See above: BLACKFEET.
See Note. Appendix E.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sastean Family.
"The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his
name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or
Klamath tribes. ... The former territory of the Sastean family
is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries
from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where
the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy
Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the
Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath,
the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as
Ashland, Oregon:"
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 106.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Savannahs.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Seminoles.
"The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies
'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the
Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek
settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in
independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as
frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it
is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a
runaway.' ... The Seminoles of modern times are a people
compounded of the following elements: separatists from the
Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly
civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes.
... The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts
by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt
there were reasons for this. ... These Indians showed, like
the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states
during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper
Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship
with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under
Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with
the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko
['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his
brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These
unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the
Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began,
which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and
Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in
April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession
of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union
(1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the
treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in
exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to
move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of
a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's
landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the
more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of
the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and
whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major
Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and
continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an
immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D.
1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile
Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822
gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to
them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory
amounted to 2,667 in 1881. ... There are some Seminoles now in
Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."
A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
volume 1, part 1, section 2.
{102}
"Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida
they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. ... In the
unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have
ever been in the wrong."
D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
page 148.
"There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians
commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families,
living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely
separated groups or settlements. ... This people our
Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer.
... The Seminole have always lived within our borders as
aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural
necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and
Indian has been secured. ... The Indians have appropriated for
their service some of the products of European civilization,
such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for
clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which
they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish
missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some
few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated
practically nothing from the white man."
C. MacCauley, The Seminole Indians of Florida (Fifth
Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),
introduction and chapter 4.
ALSO IN
J. T. Sprague, The Florida War.
S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America.
book 4, chapter 6-21.
See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Senecas; their name.
"How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among
Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible
supposition is, that the name has any reference to the
moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of
the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the
assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the
Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus
gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no
authority. ... The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch
map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. ... It
is claimed by some that the word may be derived from
'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of
in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter
Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. ... Without
assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself
with giving some data which may possibly aid others in
arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion
of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated
themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits
first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the
national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill
people,' as now used by the Senecas. ... If the name Seneca
can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word
'Nan-do-wah-gaah' ... it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,'
as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary
letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the
first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of
the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation
with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the
disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been
dropped in the process of contraction so common in the
composition of Indian words--a result which would be quite
likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through
two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing
queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are
worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."
O. H. Marshall, Historical Writings, page 231
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and HURONS, &c.
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR,
For an account of Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas,
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shacaya.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shahaptian Family.
See above: NEZ PERCÉS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Shastas.
See above: SASTEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shawanese, Shawnees, or Shawanoes.
"Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares--see above], and
associated with them in some of the most notable passages of
their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the
French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their
eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and
disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but
from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early
period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming
embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the
Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction.
Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they
lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought
refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their
native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of
the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new
settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now
suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they
were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge
among the Lenape."
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.
"The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated
there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French
and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed
to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano
are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the
orthography of the two respective languages. ... Much industry
has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to
trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think
without success. ... We first find the Shawano in actual
history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland
river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures
as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for
the present with the earliest account--the account given by
Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes
themselves, about the year 1680--that they formerly lived by
the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."
M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of
Ohio.
"Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan
than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared
in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as
the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided
into four bands"--Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake,
Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in
Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name
to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient
Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of
this band."
D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends, chapter 2.
D. G. Brinton, The Shawnees and their Migrations (History
Magazine, volume 10, 1866).
{103}
"The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of
the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their
former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the
junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which
point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate
from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash,
in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares.
This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous
(not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or
Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful
neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live
in peace with their new allies. ... The Shawanese [about 1755,
or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more
powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which
resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated
by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the
Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting
expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from
Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of
the river below the town, where they found a number of
Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river
in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to
the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel
arose among the children for the possession of it, in which
their mothers soon took part. ... The quarrel became general.
... Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for
battle. ... The Shawanese ... were not able to sustain the
conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the
remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river,
shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to
the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has
been called the Grasshopper War.
L. H. Miner, The Valley of Wyoming, page 32.
See, also, above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES
See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765-1768;
For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War",
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sheepeaters (Tukuarika).
See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sheyennes.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Shoshonean Family.
"This important family occupied a large part of the great
interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean
tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory
on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon
the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of
the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and
Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands
encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon
the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their
own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky
Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats
by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. ...
Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of
Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed
westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the
Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country,
where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the
Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire
mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of
the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being
held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian),
and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country
included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending
farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche
division of the family extended farther east than any other.
... Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas
River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory
bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the
head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande.
How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this
early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show
that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they
have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains
from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and
Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was
limited generally by the Colorado River ... while the Tusayan
(Moki) had established their seven pueblos ... to the east of
the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had
pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to
the Pacific."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report., Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 109-110.
"The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend
southward. ... The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah,
from Oregon to New Mexico. ... The Gosh Utes [Gosuites]
inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the
Pah Utes."
H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 4.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Siksikas, or Sisikas.
See above: BLACKFEET.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Siouan Family.--Sioux.
See Note, Appendix E.
"The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,
in reference both to their respective dialects and to their
geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,
viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;
the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred
tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but
called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje
('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call
themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay
of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des
Puans). ... According to the War Department they amount [1836]
to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a
considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox
River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock
River of the Mississippi. ... The Sioux proper, or
Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the
French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente
Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven
bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently
independent of each other. They do not appear to have been
known to the French before the year 1660.
{104}
... The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by
the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan
and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.
... The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,
and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the
Missouri. ... The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are
called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from
the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or
'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part
originally of the Yanktons. ... Another tribe, called
Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated
on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. ... Carver
reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs
us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]
live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern
tributary of the Missouri. ... I have been, however, assured
by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak
a distinct language, for which there is no European
interpreter. ... The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)
consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,
which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the
Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to
entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of
those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed
1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,
including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live
in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and
48° north latitude. ... The third Minetare tribe, is that
known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]
nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are
an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the
Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the
Yellowstone River. ... The southern Sioux consist of eight
tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.
Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,
from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree
of north latitude. ... Their hunting grounds extend as far
west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,
and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°
west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas
or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the
Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the
Missouri and of the river Kansas. ... The Osages, properly
Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the
neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other
Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same
dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into
Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost
one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or
Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the
river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are
now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the
Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They
amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their
lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a
territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,
extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45
to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the
Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. ...
The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,
have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,
and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and
occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. ... The five other
tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey
Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,
the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. ... All the nations
speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may ...
be computed at more than 50,000 souls."
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia
Americana, volume 2), section 4.
"Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and
means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many
later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which
signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The
two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The
term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family
sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to
him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is
in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that
the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was
correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as
distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family
who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term
with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only
recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting
the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an
extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the
Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some
affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even
with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him
to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call
attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a
considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the
Catawba linguistic material available, which has been
materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the
result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects
of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the
Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including
Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,--the
latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two
Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw,
Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros
Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba
and Woccon.
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, page 112.
ALSO IN
J. O. Dorsey, Migrations of Siouan Tribes (American
Naturalist, volume 20, March).
J. O. Dorsey, Biloxi Indians of Louisiana (V. P.
address A. A. A. S., 1893).
See, above: HIDATSA.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Sissetons.
See above SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Six Nations.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
{105}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Skittagetan Family.
"A family designation ... retained for the tribes of the Queen
Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida.
From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language
with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz
Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically
related. The two languages possess a considerable number of
words in common, but a more thorough investigation is
requisite for the settlement of the question."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 120.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Snakes.
See above: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Stockbridge Indians.
"The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the
Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of
Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called
Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by
Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians
belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New
York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton,
in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by
Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even
from Rhode Island and Long Island."
A. Gallatin, Synopsis of Indian Tribes (Archæologia
Americana, volume 2), page 35.
ALSO IN
A. Holmes, Annals of America, 1736 (volume 2).
S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races, page 15.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Susquehannas, or Andastes, or Conestogas.
"Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas;
... the French in Canada ... make frequent allusions to the
Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to
their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois;
later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the
tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at
the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map,
followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my
researches led me to correct this, and identify the
Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas
as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an
appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that
given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while
Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote
it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio
Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. ... Prior to 1600
the Susquehannas and the Mohawks ... came into collision, and
the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war
which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the
Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to
the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the
proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th
century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with
the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely
overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and
became involved there in a war with the colonists and were
destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to
Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were
allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was
settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always
friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the
Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a
treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas,
Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a
treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble
remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion
entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out
of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor
creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were
all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place.
Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad
story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in
Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so
familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained
the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."
(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap, Maryland
Historical Society, May, 1851: and 8vo. Albany, 1867).
"Logan was a Conestoga, in other words a Susquehanna."
J. G. Shea, Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of the
Province of Maryland
(Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5).
See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tachies.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND THE NAME.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tacullies.
See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Taensas.
See NATCHESAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Takilman Family.
See Note, Appendix E.
"This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct
language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue
River."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 121.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Talligewi.
See above: ALLEGHANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tañoan Family.
"The tribes of this family in the United States resided
exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from
about 33° to about 36°."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 122.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tappans.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Taranteens or Tarratines.
See above: ABNAKIS:
also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tarascans.
"The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal
god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest
people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present
State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to
their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors,
they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the
same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the
conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people,
maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in
culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were
quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. ... In
their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their
neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured
surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was,
however, the usual material."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 136.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tarumi.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tecuna.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tehuel Che.
See above: PATAGONIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Telmelches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tequestas.
See below: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tetons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Teutecas, or Tenez.
See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
{106}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Timuquanan Family.
The Tequestas.
"Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic
Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present
time. ... In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the
northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and
although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they
held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of
the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. ... The people
received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa.
... The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,'
waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's
name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. ... The
languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in
order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. ... The Calusa held
the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name
is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay.
... Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the
peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There
was a tradition that they were the same people which held the
Bahama or Lucayo Islands."
A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
volume 1, part 1.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tinneh.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tivitivas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tlascalans.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
T'linkets.
See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tobacco Nation.
See above: HURONS;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tobas.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Toltecs.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tonikan Family.
"The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:
First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of
Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,
Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that
parish, about twenty-five are now living."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 125.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tonkawan Family.
"The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium,
whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs
in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the
western and southern parts of what is now Texas."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 126.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tontos.
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Toromonos.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Totonacos.
"The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were
the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now
included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of
their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which
time they were independent, though a few generations before
the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the
arms of the Montezumas. ... Sahagun describes them as almost
white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their
features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully
dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered
with sandals. ... These people were highly civilized.
Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles
from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were
of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small
garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was
conducted. ... The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult
to make out. ... Their language has many words from Maya
roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 139.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tukuarika.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tupi.--Guarani.--Tupuyas.
"The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact,
on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term
derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior
or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with
the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi
dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the
Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially
serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and
this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible,
and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with
the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which
must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation.
The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in
forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a
universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide
extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on
this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the
continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. ...
Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations
and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in
tropical South America. ... This history ... leads to the
supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few
centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern
South America, and have spread a higher culture over that
region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their
fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western,
and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of
smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani
(warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It
cannot be determined from which direction they came. The
greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of
Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of
civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are
scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island
to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They
say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a
weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are
now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and
along both banks of the Amazon. ... It is somewhat doubtful if
this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. ... The central Tupi
live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira.
... Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them.
... The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The
western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who
came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and
manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of
idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."
The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor)
volume 6, pages 248-249.
"In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also
widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom
the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe.
To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower
Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going
quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery,
and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and
must have inhabited the country a long time."
D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, pages 269-270.
{107}
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Turiero.
See above: CHIBCHAS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tuscaroras.
See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Tuteloes.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Twightwees, or Miamis.
See above: ILLINOIS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Two Kettles.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uaupe.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uchean Family.
"The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with
any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been
visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of
Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many
investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank
of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is
supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town,
this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first
known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the
Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the
Savannah."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 126.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uhilches.
See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uirina.
See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Uncpapas.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Utahs.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wabenakies, or Abnakis.
See above: ABNAKIS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wacos, or Huecos.
See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wahpetons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waiilatpuan Family.
"Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux
or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as
indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River
and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 127.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waikas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wakashan Family.
"The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the
Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the
island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' ... The term
'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally
ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been
adopted. ... Though by no means as appropriate a designation
as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called
Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled
under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority
and must be retained."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, pages 129-130.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.
See above: POKANOKETS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wapisianas.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wappingers.
See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Waraus.
See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Washakis.
See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES
Washoan Family.
"This family is represented by a single well known tribe,
whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central
Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 131.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.
See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Winnebagoes.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wishoskan Family.
"This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is
known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes
which speak it. ... The area occupied by the tribes speaking
dialects of this language was the coast from a little below
the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River,
including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 133.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Witumkas.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Woccons.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Wyandots.
See above: HURONS.
Yamasis and Yamacraws.
See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yamco.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yanan Family.
"The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a
range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and
terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line
running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern
side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The
western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10
miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it
averages double that distance or about 20 miles."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 135.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yanktons and Yanktonnais.
See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yncas, or Incas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuchi.
See above: UCHEAN FAMILY.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuguarzongo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yukian Family.
"Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to
receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat
of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the
mountains to the coast."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 136.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuman Family.
"The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila
Valleys."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 137.
See above: APACHE GROUP.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuncas.
See PERU.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Yuroks or Eurocs.
See above: MODOCS, &c.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zaporo.
See above: ANDESIANS.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Zoques, Mixes, etc.
"The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring
regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call
themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,
about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In
ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,
the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly
civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were
agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and
constructing buildings of stone and mortar.
{108}
The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of
these still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. ... The Mixtecs
adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast
of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In
culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. ... The mountain
regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent
portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats
of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians
draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and
cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the
Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful
accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of
years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,
homely, lazy and drunken. ... The faint traditions of these
peoples pointed to the South for their origin. ... The
Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state
of Oaxaca. ... The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs
and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the
Spaniards as deliverers. ... Other names by which they are
mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. ... In speaking of the
province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it
derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants
were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and
inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of
horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,
excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were
withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that
they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. ... But the more
authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were
properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red
macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern
latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to
Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains
of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."
D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 140-146.
ALSO IN
A. Bandelier, Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zoques.
See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
Zuñian Family.
"Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the
people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi
who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."
J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
Ethnology, page 138.
See, above, PUEBLOS;
also, AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.
----------AMERICAN ABORIGINES: End----------
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER),
and after.
Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY).
AMERICAN KNIGHTS, Order of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
AMERICAN PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
AMERICAN SYSTEM, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.
AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.
AMICITIÆ.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
AMIDA, Sieges of.
The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of
the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the
Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two
nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a
terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian
king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and
slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few
surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town
was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans
and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass
through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was
besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by
storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A
century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but
with less violence.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 9, 19
and 24.
See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
AMIENS.--Origin of name.
See BELGÆ.
AMIENS: A. D. 1597.
Surprise by the Spaniards.
Recovery by Henry IV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
AMIENS: A. D. 1870.
Taken by the Germans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
----------AMIENS: End----------
AMIENS, The Mise of.
See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.
AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).
Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England
and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the
Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the
cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.
J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII.,
volume 2. chapter 26 and 28.
AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.
AMIR.
An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.
AMISIA, The.
The ancient name of the river Ems.
AMISUS, Siege of.
The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important
operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the
coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it
is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus,
which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following
year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken
and sent to Rome.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 1 and
2.
AMMANN.
This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal
Council or Gemeinderath.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
AMMON, The Temple and Oracle of.
The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which
was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with
the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah
was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its
identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell
('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). ... The site of the
celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by
Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently
visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of
the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of
Delphi and Dodona."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 8,
section 1, and chapter 12, section 1, and note E.
An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C.
525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.
See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
{109}
AMMONITES, The.
According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the
Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second
daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest
daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical
history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab
was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the
Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."
G. Grove, Dictionary of the Bible.
See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
also, MOABITES.
AMMONITI, OR AMMONIZIONI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.
AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1863 (DECEMBER).
AMORIAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
AMORIAN WAR, The.
The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens,
took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of
Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the
birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun
Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the
place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to
him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he
invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous
army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of
Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that
distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,--whence the ensuing war
was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in
the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the
doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance
for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the
caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a
merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of
his revenge.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
AMORITES, The.
"The Hittites and Amorites were ... mingled together in the
mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists
tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments
teach us that they were of very different origin and
character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and
'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes,
and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on
their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we
cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their
enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was
because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the
contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted
with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the
characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points
out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who
form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of
the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern
Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the
mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and
are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles.
The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail
to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the
population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled
skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall
stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and
when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called
dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the
skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country
they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the
modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the
Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across
representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom
we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we
see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We
know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long
after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken
from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of
Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great
temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular
profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it,
their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the
features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of
stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the
white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite
inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as
giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by,
the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish
invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and
Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of
Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their
neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the
Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the
Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the
mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans
themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the
peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the
British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular
branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied
by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built
of large uncut stones. ... It has been necessary to enter at
this length into what has been discovered concerning the
Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully
they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they
afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of
Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They
extended over a much wider area."
A. H. Sayce, The Hittites, chapter 1.
AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.
"An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body
was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous
temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that
temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece
[besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of
Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some
celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater
importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the
greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it
incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek
nation had some kind of representation among them.
{110}
But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect
representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other
objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a
fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the
Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other
existing body to the character of a general representation of
all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the
religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a
political character. ... Once or twice then, in the course of
Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with
real dignity in the name of united Greece. ... Though the list
of members of the Council is given with some slight variations
by different authors, all agree in making the constituent
members of the union tribes and not cities. The
representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as
single members, side by side with the representatives of petty
peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the
Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless
mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development
of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference
in its constitution. ... The Amphiktyonic Council was not
exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a
diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of
any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and
Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much
more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British
Parliament or even an American Congress. ... The nearest
approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be
if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen
by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,
volume 1, chapter 3.
AMPHILOCHIANS, The.
See AKARNANIANS.
AMPHIPOLIS.
This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on
the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake
into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called
"The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human
sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.
Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 15.
It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and
made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437],
dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to
Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able
Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into
Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused
great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the
historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the
disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate
exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years
later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an
expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in
Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was
killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether
Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her
victory is a question.
Thucydides, History, book 4, section 102-135:
book 5, section 1-11.
See, also,
ATHENS: B. C. 466-454,
and GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
Amphipolis was taken by Philip of Macedon, B. C. 358.
See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.
AMPHISSA, Siege and Capture by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 339-338).
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
AMPHITHEATRES, Roman.
"There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not
an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of
spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats
seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries
in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first
recreation for which they provided in the places where they
were stationed. ... Gladiatorial combats were held from early
times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but
until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which
could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two
semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any
special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It
may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance
first suggested the elliptical shape. ... As specimens of
architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the
mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose
displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration.
The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and
unpleasing in its lines when entire."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.
AMPHORA.--MODIUS.
"The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal,
which contained a cubic foot ... equal to 5.687 imperial
gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The
Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the
latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained
one-third of an Amphora. ... The Culeus was equal to 20
Amphoræ."
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13.
AMRITSAR.
See SIKHS.
AMSTERDAM:
The rise of the city.
"In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland,
not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially
drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of
the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men
who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea;
but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a
century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town,
or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The
spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion
of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive
artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and
peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better,
their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble
hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship
of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary
limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive
process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was
necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing
that the date of each successive enlargement has been so
accurately recorded."
W. T. McCullagh, Industrial History of Three Nations,
volume 2, chapter 9.
{111}
AMT.--AMTER.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.
AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.
Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.
Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.
Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.
AMYCLÆ,
The Silence of.-
Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of
Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric
invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its
independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but
succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a
proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of
Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often
disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at
length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the
silent city was taken by surprise."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 7.
AMYTHAONIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.
AN, The City of.
See ON.
ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.
"Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled
round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is
one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all
other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it.
Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none?
In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was
much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered
many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words
against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at
this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself
to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress
Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and
appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in
1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the
Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest
he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal
property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann,
to preach in one of the churches against the errors of
Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he
stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the
churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening.
They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the
wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The
bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if
the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and
revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against
the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but
in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of
which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in
the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were
confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those
who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced
to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its
gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the
Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles
of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches
were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved
for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest
the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of
the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread,
and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a
tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up
his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the
doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he
rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the
reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The
mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it,
and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded
the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the
evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains
across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates
and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there
appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long
ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced
through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who
bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These
men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson,
head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once
associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a
scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the
streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw
visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the
extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. ... A great
number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the
land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten;
those who were sick were carried to the market-place and
re-baptized by Rottmann. ... This was too much to be borne.
The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus
began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a
multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor,
held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth
the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the
crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they
declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be
turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves
were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was
revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible
was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and
libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then
it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled
down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which
the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on
them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go
forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He
dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded
and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck
dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson
took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He
declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been
killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which
was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many.
{112}
Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry
Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further
revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the
capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. ... Then
he had another revelation that every man was to have as many
wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was
too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed
against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more
respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the
seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of
them. ... At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of
sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens,
unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations
committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the
prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise
the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets
ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people,
hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the
place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of
Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh
plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust
into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron
cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this
hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect
throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the
desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted
to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."
S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, chapter 36.
ALSO IN the same,
Historic Oddities and Strange Events, 2d Series.
L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3).
C. Beard, The Reformation (Hibbert Lectures., 1883),
lecture 6.
ANAHUAC.
"The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was,
probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the
Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions
occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races.
Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia
suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote
the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."
W. B. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico,
book 1, chapter 1, note 11.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
ANAKIM, The.
See HORITES, and AMORITES.
ANAKTORIUM.
See KORKYRA.
ANAPA: A. D. 1828.
Siege and Capture.
Cession to Russia.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
ANARCHISTS.
"The anarchists are ... a small but determined band. ...
Although their programme may be found almost word for word in
Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the
Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the
Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain,
Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated
nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one
and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older,
stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger
and more modern sense, those who are simply political and
constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine
came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he
revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about
him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded
that no great improvement could be expected until all our
present political, economic, and social institutions were so
thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone
should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated
world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all
anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as
far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction
against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to
abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is
to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of
clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is
an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire,
dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a
large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for
their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and
death are counted but as rewards. ... Forty-seven anarchists
signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of
their number at their trial at Lyons. ... 'We wish liberty
[they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with
the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and
form--whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or
republican--whether inspired by divine right or by popular
right, by anointment or universal suffrage. ... The best
governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in
human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and
dissoluble, is our ideal.'"
H. T. Ely, French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
chapter 8.
"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
the state that it shall embrace all the more important
concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
individualist. ... Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
... About 12 years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah
Warren reached similar conclusions in America."
H. L. Osgood, Scientific Anarchism
(Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889), pages 1-2.
See, also, NIHILISM.
ANARCHISTS, The Chicago.
See Chicago: A. D. 1886-1887.
ANASTASIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern.) A. D. 491-518.
ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.
ANASTASIUS III., Pope, A. D. 911-913
ANASTASIUS IV., Pope., A. D. 1153-1154.
ANATOLIA.
See ASIA MINOR.
ANCALITES, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.
ANCASTER, Origin of.
See CAUSENNÆ.
{113}
ANCHORITES.--HERMITS.
"The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England ... offered few
spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a
hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world
into a more strict and solitary life than that which the
monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves,
as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of
stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is
nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have
been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony,
immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only
recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this
practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of
these cells are to be found about our parish churches."
C. Kingsley, The Hermits, page 329.
The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious
ascetics who lived in solitary cells.
J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 1, section 4.
"The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a
hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed
his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading
indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."
R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the
Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page xxi.
ANCIENT REGIME.
The political and social system in France that was destroyed
by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the
"ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal
English form--"the ancient regime;" others render it more
appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special
application is to the state of things described under FRANCE:
A. D. 1789.
ANCIENTS, The Council of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795(JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
ANCRUM, Battle of.
A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making
an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D.
1544.
J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 35 (volume 3).
ANDALUSIA:
The name.
"The Vandals, ... though they passed altogether out of Spain,
have left their name to this day in its southern part, under
the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen
conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 4, section 3.
See, also: VANDALS: A. D. 428.
Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to
the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.
ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
ANDASTÉS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
ANDECAVI.
The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
tribe which occupied that region.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
ANDERIDA.--ANDERIDA SYLVA.--ANDREDSWALD.
A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex
and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva
by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided
nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the
Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald.
On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans
established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which
has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the
Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in
the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a
long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew
all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton
left."
J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 1.
ALSO IN
T. Wright, Celt, Roman, and Saxon, chapter 5.
ANDERSON, Major Robert.
Defense of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER); 1861
(MARCH-APRIL).
ANDERSONVILLE PRISON--PENS.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
ANDES, OR ANDI, OR ANDECAVI, The.
See VENETI of WESTERN GAUL.
ANDESIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES; ANDESIANS.
ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.
ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.
ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.
ANDRONICUS I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D.
1183-1185.
Andronicus II. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A.
D. 1282-1328.
Andronicus III. (Palæologus), A. D. 1328-1341.
ANDROS, Governor, New England and New York under.
See
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
and 1686-1689;
NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;
and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
ANDROS, Battle of (B. C. 407).
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
ANGELIQUE, La Mère.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
ANGERS, Origin of.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
ANGLES AND JUTES, The.
The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,
passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the
Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,
and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of
these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common
worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she
interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her
car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and
within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.
Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the
presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by
her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by
heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns
wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to
battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and
quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,
weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same
priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,
if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified
in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly
swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror
and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is
seen only by men doomed to die.
{114}
This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the
remoter regions of Germany."
Tacitus, Germany; translated by Church and Brodribb,
chapter 40.
"In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the
fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more
uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a
matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the
several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in
the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy
it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to
the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period
it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power,
into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be
reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is
by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not
connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the
Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached
their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history
we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen
of the Goths and the close similarity between their
descendants and the neighbour Frisians."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3.
"Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that
they are only known through their relations to us of England,
their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they
would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old
Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because
there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of
Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other
writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in
Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated.
... I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were--1: The
Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of
Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to
the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian
to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is
one of great magnitude and numerous complications."
R. G. Latham, The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section
49.
ALSO IN J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 89-95.
See, also, AVIONES, and SAXONS.
The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in
Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and
547-633.
ANGLESEA, Ancient.
See MONA, MONAPIA, and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
ANGLO-SAXON.
A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and
Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which
took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by
their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate
the race, the language and the institutions which resulted
from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being
superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the
people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term
Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to
designate the Early English people and their language, before
the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that
period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are
protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman
(Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A), says: "The name by
which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they
were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,'
'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which
the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. ...
As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable
with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was
one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers,
not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke
of themselves, as Englishmen--'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"
See, also, SAXONS, and ANGLES AND JUTES.
ANGLON, Battle of.
Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the
Persians, with disaster to the former.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 20.
ANGORA, Battle of (1402).
See TIMOUR
also, TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.
ANGOSTURA, OR BUENA VISTA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
ANGRIVARII, The.
The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their
settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the
neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some
extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of
Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe
is preserved in that of the town Engern."
A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Tacitus's Germany,
notes.
See, also, BRUCTERI.
ANI.
Storming of the Turks (1064).
See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
ANILLEROS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
ANJOU:
Creation of the County.
Origin of the Plantagenets.
"It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign
[Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in
the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian
part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France,
and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks
of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling
up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold
of ignoble birth. ... He sought to surround himself with new
men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of
the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the
most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king.
Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus,
an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived
by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude,
cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and
driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus
entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve,
and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a
bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the
forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a
pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This
happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus
served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great
authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's
energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and
aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage
with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's
daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal
family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois
were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal
also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory.
Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the
first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,--Marquis, Consul
or Count of Anjou,--for all these titles are assigned to him.
Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary
Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant
family."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 2.
{115}
ANJOU: A. D. 987-1129.
The greatest of the old Counts.
"Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest
of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked
type of character which their house was to preserve with a
fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without
natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake,
and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his
gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war
against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a
humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their
foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old
man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like
a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet.
... But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men
broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At
his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater
provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent,
at least in real power, first among them all. ... His
overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed
by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. ... His great
victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the
seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while
Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted
the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert
Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed
his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel
was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow
wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at
his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the
Norman border. Here ... his advance was checked by the genius
of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of
Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of
Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions,
the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left
Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to
fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem.
... Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared.
It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded
to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter
Matilda."
J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, chapter
2, section 7.
ALSO IN
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter
2-4.
ANJOU: A. D. 1154.
The Counts become Kings of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
ANJOU: A. D. 1204.
Wrested from the English King John.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
English attempts to recover the county.
The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.
Creation of the Dukedom.
King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the
sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his
forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded
and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like,
he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following
year, and ... made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In
that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at
Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a
blow. But ... the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat
from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th
of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is
called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the
confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus
established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the
first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur
[of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count
in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine,
owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal,
William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de
Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner
during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of
England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230
he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view
of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of
his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old ... advanced
to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace
was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to
the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou
and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246,
he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the
counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and
title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou.
Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third
House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured
his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of
his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine,
ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY
(SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended
in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In
1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in
1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The
Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came
to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,--the
"good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for
the most part a name, and who is best known to English
readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the
stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father,
Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count
of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In
1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in
Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar,
as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and
Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke,
whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen
Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted
kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to
Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament--to
René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title
during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief
period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his
competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).
M. A. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
introduction and chapter 1-2.
----------ANJOU: End----------
{116}
ANJOU, The English House of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1155-1189.
ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.
Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.
ANJOU: A. D. 1282.
Loss of Sicily.
Retention of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.
ANJOU: A. D. 1310-1382.
Possession of the Hungarian throne.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
ANJOU: A. D. 1370-1384.
Acquisition and loss of the crown of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.
Claims of Louis of Anjou.
His expedition to Italy and his death.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-
Renewed contest for Naples.
Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.
See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.
ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.
Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.
Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
----------ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: End----------
ANKENDORFF, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
ANKERS.
See ANCHORITES.
ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.
ANNALES MAXIMI, The.
See FASTI.
ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.
War with France.
French protectorate accepted.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, NOVA SCOTIA:
Change of name from Port Royal (1710).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.
"A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the
churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on
presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on
receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from
their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates,
or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the
crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars.
Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of
the chief resources of the papal revenue."
J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 4.
"The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and
other promotions was apparently first made in England by
Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by
Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a
measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout
Christendom for three years, and met with universal
resistance. ... Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of
Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in
parliament and council the demand must have been regularly
complied with."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 19, section 718.
See, also, QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
ANNE, Queen of England, A. D. 1702-1714.
ANNE OF AUSTRIA, Queen-regent of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1651-1653.
ANNE BOLEYN, Marriage, trial and execution of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, and 1536-1543.
ANSAR, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ANSIBARII, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, &c.
ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.
See GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY.
Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.
See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.
ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ANTES, The.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
ANTESIGNANI, The.
"In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a
certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of
the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard,
from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."
C. Menvale, History of the Romans, chapter 15.
ANTHEMIUS, Roman Emperor:(Western), A. D. 467-472.
ANTHESTERIA, The.
See DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.
ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and
1845-1846.
ANTI-FEDERALISTS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, American.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, Mexican.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
ANTI-RENTERS.--ANTI-RENT WAR.
See LIVINGSTON MANOR.
ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO.
ANTIETAM, OR SHARPSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
ANTIGONEA.
See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
ANTIGONID KINGS, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.
ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; 310-301.
ANTIGONUS GONATUS, The wars of.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
ANTILLES.--ANTILIA.
"Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the
antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets
etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia
of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734,
says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish
peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the
direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of
Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an
island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak
of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin
(Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by
corruption Antilia. ... The seven bishops were believed in the
16th century to be still represented by their successors, and
to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most
geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of
Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. ...
As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had
discovered a large island, Española was at once identified
with Antilia, ... and the name ... has ever since been applied
generally to the West Indian islands."
E. J. Payne, History of the New World called America, volume
1, page 98.
See, also, WEST INDIES.
{117}
ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
ANTIOCH:
Founding of the City.
See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.
The Christian Church.
See CHRISTIANITY, EARLY.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
Great Earthquake.
"Early in the year 115, according to the most exact
chronology, ... the splendid capital of Syria was visited by
an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all
the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has
periodically suffered. ... The calamity was enhanced by the
presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east,
assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take
part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the
victims were many Romans of distinction. ... Trajan, himself,
only escaped by creeping through a window."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 65.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 260.
Surprise, massacre and pillage by Sapor, King of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 526.
Destruction by Earthquake.
During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of
the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more
frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the
metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of
May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the
adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of
the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were
crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter
10.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ANTIOCH: A. D. 540.
Stormed, pillaged and burned by Chosroes, the Persian King.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 638.
Surrender to the Arabs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 969.
Recapture by the Byzantines.
After having remained 328 years in the possession of the
Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by
the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a
Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great
effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine
arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending
Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus
Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even
Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and
Mesopotamia were not lasting.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D.
716-1007, book 2, chapter 2.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE, A. D. 963-1025.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 1097-1098.
Siege and capture by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 1099-1144.
Principality.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.
Extinction of the Latin Principality.
Total destruction of the city.
Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt
and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily
extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name
was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the
captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This
fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last
vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at
Acre.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and
permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for
the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and
pedlars from all parts of the East. ... 'It was,' says the
Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the
hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the
captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be
purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for
five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all
the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the
churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired
in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah
Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul
and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the
vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and
without an inhabitant."
C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 6.
----------ANTIOCH: End----------
ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.
See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.
ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
ANTIUM.
"Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards
of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a
small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port;
the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring
indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more
than a mile to the eastward. ... The piracies of the ancient
Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22
long ships. These Numicius took; ... some were taken to Rome
and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. ... It
[Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from
Ostia."
Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
ANTIUM, Naval Battle of (1378).
See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
ANTIVESTÆUM.
See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.
ANTONINES, The.
See ROME: A. D. 138-180.
ANTONINUS, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.
ANTONINUS PIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 138-161.
ANTONY, Mark, and the Second Triumvirate.
See ROME: B. C. 44 to 31.
ANTRUSTIONES.
In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
{118}
several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices
political and judicial, or from a position about the person of
the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant
attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. ...
Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same
position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later
times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial
oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as
it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in
the palace, where they superintended the various departments
of the royal household."
W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 10.
ANTWERP:
The name of the City.
Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.--"The city was
so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity,
ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and
discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of
Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted
one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his
castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river
the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff.
Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence,
two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up
in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his
turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from
whose exploits Brabant derived its name. ... But for these
antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would
seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first
half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and
exchange of Europe. ... the commercial capital of the world.
... Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but
Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm
to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its
sister cities' grasp. ... No city, except Paris, surpassed it
in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."
J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, Hist.
Introduction, section 13.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1313.
Made the Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1566.
Riot of the Image-breakers in the Churches.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1576.--The Spanish Fury.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.
Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.
Demolition of the Citadel.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1583.
Treacherous attempt of the Duke of Anjou.
The French Fury.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.
Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.
The downfall of prosperity.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.
Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.
Closing of the Scheldt.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1706.
Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
Siege of the Citadel by the French.
Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------ANTWERP: End----------
APACHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
APALACHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES.
APAMEA.
Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates,
the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had
become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian
Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second
only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary
crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the
passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of
the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still
the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or
Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317).
APANAGE.
See APPANAGE.
APATURIA, The.
An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for
three days in the early part of the month of October
(Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the
Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the
constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each
containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens
in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the
aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic
tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family
ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of
adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful
citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll;
sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages
to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied
with much festivity and enjoyment."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 64 (volume 7).
APELLA, The.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION. &c.
APELOUSAS, The.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL, INHABITANTS.
APHEK, Battle of.
A great victory won by Ahab, king of Israel over Benhadad,
king of Damascus.
H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 4, section 1.
APODECTÆ, The.
"When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom
the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and
distributed them to the several administrative departments,
these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens
the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number
of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. ... They had in
their possession the lists of the debtors of the state,
received the money which was paid in, registered an account of
it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in
the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors
who had paid the demands against them from the list, and
deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together
with the council, apportioned the sums received."
A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb),
book 2, chapter 4.
APOLLONIA IN ILLYRIA, The Founding of.
See KORKYRA.
{119}
APOSTASION.
See POLETÆ.
APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
APPANAGE.
"The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger
children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands
and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of
peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new
class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests
and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of
the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy
was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it
impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal
family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as
circumstances would permit."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.
"From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to
provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of
appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons,
which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them
reverted to the crown."
T. Wright, History of France, volume 1, page 308, note.
APPIAN WAY, The.
Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from
312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during
that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the
Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of
the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been
quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by
Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a
shorter and safer one. ... The Appian road, even if Appius did
carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that
splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which
have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined
polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been
able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius
commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in
the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later
basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the
beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to
the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads
constructed according to artistic principles had
previously existed."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome.
lecture 45.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
H. G. Liddell, History of ROME, volume 1, page 251.
APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Lee's Surrender at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL, VIRGINIA).
APULEIAN LAW.
See MAJESTAS.
APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.
Norman conquest and Dukedom.
Union with Sicily.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194.
APULIANS, The.
See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.
AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.
See SALYES.
AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
AQUÆ SOLIS.
The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in
modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned
in Roman times with temples and other edifices.
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
AQUIDAY, OR AQUETNET.
The native name of Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
AQUILA, Battle of (1424).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
AQUILEIA.
Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the
Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial
emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at
the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty
miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood
is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which
separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B.
C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to
serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by
the vague name of Gauls. ... Possessing a good harbour, with
which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia
gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between
Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 4.
AQUILEIA: A. D. 238.--Siege by Maximin.
See ROME: A. D. 238.
AQUILEIA: A. D. 388.--Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
See ROME: A. D. 379-395.
AQUILEIA: A. D. 452.--Destruction by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 452;
also, VENICE: A. D. 452.
----------AQUILEIA: End----------
AQUITAINE:
The ancient tribes.
The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one
of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought
the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated
their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where
three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes
which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones,
Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci,
Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the
lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of
the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name
Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and
the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the
Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni
contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne]
and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants
of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots.
Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road
from Dax to Bordeaux."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 6.
"Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the
Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. ... If, as
seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of
the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they
must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees
before the beginning of the historic period."
I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 2, section 5.
AQUITAINE: In Cæsar's time.
See GAUL DESCRIBED BY CÆSAR.
AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 567.--Divided between the Merovingian Kings.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
{120}
AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.
The independent Dukes and their subjugation.
"The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils
of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it
without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the
Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But
the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different
members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a
distant possession within their grasp; and at this period
[681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were
gathering the reins of government over the three
kingdoms--Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy--into their hands].
Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince.
The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in
fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it
had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons
[see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who
descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north
until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the
Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke
of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against
the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with
them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which
established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance
and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century
afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant'
Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it,
fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to
establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years
[760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction
of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became
masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their
principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was
assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the
satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine
to the monarchy of the Franks."
J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 8.
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin. History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 14-15.
W. H. Perry, The Franks, chapter 5-6.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 732.
Ravaged by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.
In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and
Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of
Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine
proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the
Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse.
Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province,
entirely dependent on the central or personal government of
Charles. ... The nominal designations of king and kingdom
might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a
scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute
dependence and subordination."
J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
book 2. chapter 11.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 843.
In the division of Charlemagne's Empire.
See FRANCE: A. D.843.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
The end of the nominal kingdom.
The disputed Ducal Title.
"Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the
last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of
Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute
a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between
powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of
the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by
Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the
Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony.
King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the
Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of
that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou
disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south
with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou
acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or
Guienne,--supposed to be a corruption of the name of
Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which
remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of
Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of
England (1151)."
E. De Bonnechose, History of France, book 2, chapter 3,
foot-note.
"The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's
predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory
between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was
bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by
Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County
of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been
united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian
kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had,
in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the
Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast
territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of
overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had,
however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of
Toulouse."
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 10.
See, also, TOULOUSE: 10TH AND 11TH CENTURIES.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152.
Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown
of England.
In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of
Aquitaine--William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour
whom the Red King had hoped to succeed--died on a pilgrimage
at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before
setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage
had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he
left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he
bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis
[VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength
of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of
all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to
be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with
the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between
the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:--a
territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain
and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert
more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152
Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the
great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather
than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess
was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy,
afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage
Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained
so for three hundred years.
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 8.
{121}
AQUITAINE: 12th Century.
The state of the southern parts.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.
The final conquest and union with France.
"By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward
III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was
recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine,
without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French
monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France,
partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A.
D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief,
but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The
feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The
nobles to a great extent, though far from universally,
preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their
notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the
privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would
make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities
and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also,
clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good
reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by
interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of
Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects
to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."
E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical
Essays, 1st Series, No.7).
----------AQUITAINE: End----------
AQUITANI, The.
See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.
ARABIA.--ARABS:
The Name.
"There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was ...
given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and
their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the
original Semitic name Arab."
G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 2, page 71.
ARABIA:
The ancient succession and fusion of Races.
"The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more
especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism,
became uniform throughout the peninsula. ... But it was not
always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the
inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one
race. ... Several distinct races successively immigrated into
the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their
distinctive characteristics, their manners and their
civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one
blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages
were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism
alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now
called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the
name, who have used any discernment in collecting the
traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example,
distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula.
They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs
into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba.
... The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of
Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the
Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram,
descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary
importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people
of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba
were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian
tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin
were Ismaelitish tribes. ... The Cushites, the first
inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by
the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad,
the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab
historians are but fanciful legends. ... In the midst of all
the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may
perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the
Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of
Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces
of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an
advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing
a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with
whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and
obscene rites. ... It was about eighteen centuries before our
era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. ... According
to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar
nature, was accomplished only by force. ... After this
invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still
the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in
knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still
almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and
material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was
formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the
race of Cush. ... Little by little the new nation of Ad was
formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba
proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis,
there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the
neighbouring provinces they were already settled. ... It was
during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that
Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called
it the land of Pun. ... Conquered during the minority of
Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen
appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous
times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II.
recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne,
and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the
twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian
power was finally lost. ... The conquest of the land of Pun
under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the
temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M.
Duemichen. ... The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari
afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between
India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under
Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of
its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern
Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. ... For a
long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans
crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more
difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not
attempted till some centuries later. ...
{122}
The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia
towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the
history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the
first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as
commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet
Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were
thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all
spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' ... A great
number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade,
established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein.
Phœnician factories were also established at several places on
the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and
Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. ... This
commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty,
seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have
ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III.
... Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon
despatched vessels down the Red Sea. ... The vessels of the
two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once
before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth
dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the
merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder,
and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by
the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of
India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in
the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant
voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned.
The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of
Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus
the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power
of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the
cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem
to see Solomon. ... The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to
Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the
ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place
at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. ... The
empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which
the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived
amongst the Cushite Sabæans. ... The assimilation of the
Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution
which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan
over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the
civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language,
the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were
still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in
their interests. ... Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible
always carefully distinguishes them by a different
orthography. ... The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however,
especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the
Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving
rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the
mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to
M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into
Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the
revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. ...
The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into
Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of
their having done so. ... Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites,
and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was
succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and
feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he
allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to
make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of
Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. ...
Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being
Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these
two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite
tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism.
The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the
Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. ...
This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab
historians."
F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of Ancient History
of the East, book 7, chapter 1-2 (volume 2).
ARABIA:
Sabæans, The.
"For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic
inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one
another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of
the dialects is philologically older than the other,
containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The
inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital
of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the
Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect
were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of
the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The
Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was
destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for
several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been
engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom
of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of
Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders
of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who
migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century
B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are
still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than
once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia.
About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from
350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them.
Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine
help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan
kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had
long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it,
and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith.
His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as
Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378,
brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their
sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka.
Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of
Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which
subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of
Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract
the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and
proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its
assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the
members of the two religions.
{123}
A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of
Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and
the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of
Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of
Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi
were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed.
The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the
kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces
its history from the time when its princes were still but
Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian,
through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later
still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they
claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of
Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated
their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first
discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ
is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B.
C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in
a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh,
became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be
sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed
when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The
visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the
long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south
of Arabia. ... As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set
before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of
Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two
dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan
and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography
offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the
seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan
kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the
midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that
the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom
preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is
that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian
inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that
though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan
people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan
kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics
of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn
of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto
imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet
in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and
practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician
written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date
are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet
itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The
names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us.
... A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must
necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies
of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless
not the first which had sought to gain possession of the
cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is
alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy.
... But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its
infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a
small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. ...
The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly
lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed
it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful
kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have
exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."
A. H. Sayce, Ancient Arabia
(Contemporary Review., December, 1889).
ARABIA: 6th Century.
Partial conquest by the Abyssinians.
See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.
ARABIA: A. D. 609-632.
Mahomet's conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
ARABIA: A. D. 1517.
Brought under the Turkish sovereignty.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
----------ARABIA: End----------
ARABS, Conquests of the.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.
ARACAN, English acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ARACHOTI, The.
A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab,
or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the
tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call
themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers,"
are probably derived from them.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.
ARAGON: A. D. 1035-1258.
Rise of the kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
ARAGON: A. D. 1133.
Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.
The Monarchical constitution.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.
The first oath of allegiance to the king.
Conquest of Balearic Islands.
Subjugation of Valencia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.
The Castilian dynasty.
Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
ARAGON: A. D. 1516.
The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna,
mother of Charles V.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
----------ARAGON: End----------
ARAICU, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
ARAM.--ARAM NAHARAIM.--ARAM--ZOBAH.--ARAMÆANS.
See SEMITES;
also, SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
ARAMBEC.
See NORUMBEGA.
ARAPAHOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
ARAR, The.
The ancient name of the river Saone, in France.
ARARAT.--URARDA.
See ALARODIANS.
ARATOS, and the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ARAUCANIANS, The.
See CHILE.
ARAUSIO.
A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is
represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in
the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.
P. Goodwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 2, chapter 5.
ARAUSIO, Battle of (B. C. 105).
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
{124}
ARAVISCI AND OSI, The.
"Whether ... the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi,
a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into
Germany, as both nations still retain the same language,
institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."--"The
locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of
the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna
(Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion
of the south-west of Hungary. ... The Osi seem to have dwelt
near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus
have occupied a part of Gallicia."
Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, with
geographical notes.
ARAWAKS, OR ARAUACAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
ARAXES, The.
This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic
streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently
with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into
the Caspian.
ARBAS, Battle of.
One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which
the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter
22.
ARBELA, or GAUGAMELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
ARCADIA.
The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern
peninsula of Greece--a district surrounded by a singular
mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been
pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and
from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the
many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part
of the country, however, has only one opening towards the
western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the
Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also
increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some
lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of
the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes,
or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that
in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus
many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This
region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and
elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams
flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a
country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of
Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was
always considered in the light of a single community. Its
climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly
in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on
the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been
described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native
of Arcadia."
C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 4.
"The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a
smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and
pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and
picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their
time between tending their flocks and making love to one
another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic
conception of the country and the people is not to be traced
in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the
actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently
primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or
picturesque about their land or their lives."
C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, pages 381-382.
ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.
The union of Arcadian towns.
Restoration of Mantineia.
Building of Megalopolis.
Alliance with Thebes.
Wars with Sparta and Elis.
Disunion.
Battle of Mantineia.
See GREECE: B. C. 371, and 371-362.
ARCADIA: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
ARCADIA: B. C. 243-146.
In the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
----------ARCADIA: End----------
ARCADIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 395-408.
ARCHIPELAGO, The Dukes of the.
See NAXOS: THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM.
ARCHON.
See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.
ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
ARCOLA, Battle of (1796).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
ARCOT: A. D. 1751.
Capture and defence by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ARCOT: A. D. 1780.
Siege and capture by Hyder Ali.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
----------ARCOT: End----------
ARDEN, Forest of.
The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater
part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden
became the dwindled representative."
J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 7.
ARDENNES, Forest of.
"In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests,
the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which
extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as
the shores of the North Sea."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 22.
"Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French
departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes.
Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name
exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 14.
ARDRI, OR ARDRIGH, The.
See TUATH.
ARDSHIR, OR ARTAXERXES,
Founding of the Sassanian monarchy by.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
ARECOMICI, The.
See VOLCÆ.
ARECUNAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
AREIOS.
See ARIA.
ARELATE:
The ancient name of Arles.
The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes
called the Arelate.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378,
and SALYES.
ARENGO, The.
See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.
AREOPAGUS, The.
"Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood
upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common
altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments
concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the
barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the
citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been
the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and
to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained
conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of
twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the
accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he
was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the
most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the
city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2.
{125}
"The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient
legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the
Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a
highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance
of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its
forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and
solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges
might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the
criminals. ... The venerable character of the court seems to
have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and,
without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to
erect it into a supreme council, invested with a
superintending and controlling authority, which extended over
every part of the social system. He constituted it the
guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over
the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the
State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and
profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of
interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and
imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature
of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to
define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let
them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is
indistinct. ... It was filled with Archons who had discharged
their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats
for life."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 11.
These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from
it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes,
but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the
Thirty.--"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first
establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. ... But
there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the
senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial
antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions
underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent
and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings
and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of
course be known by the title of The Boule,--the senate, or
council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed
from the place where its sittings were held, would not be
bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or
council, from which there was need to discriminate it."
G. Grote, History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3).
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, and 466-454.
ARETHUSA, Fountain of.
See SYRACUSE.
AREVACÆ, The.
One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their
chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian
resistance to the Roman conquest.
See NUMANTIAN WAR.
ARGADEIS, The.
See PHYLÆ.
ARGAUM, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ARGENTARIA, Battle of (A. D.378).
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.
First founding of Buenos Ayres.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.
Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.
"In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid
at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice
previously been chosen--namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de
Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded
the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected
for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the
worst ever chosen for a city ... has probably the worst
harbour in the world for a large commercial town. ...
Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres
soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the
Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe
fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The
latter, however, were effectually quelled. ... The Spaniards
were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they
had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives
between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning
which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De
Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage
back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the
ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a
party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The
death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by
the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him
was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of
the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed
into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio
de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital.
This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. ... The
merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the
supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the
prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way
of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were
relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels
of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of
50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation
Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of
its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the
English ... obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying
Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of
which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos
Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200
negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of
the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other
goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but
under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on
the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of
transacting a considerable contraband trade. ...
{126}
The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By
the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the
important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the
Banda Oriental--or 'Eastern Border'--afterwards called
Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. ... The Portuguese, ...
not contented with the possession of Colonia ... commenced a
more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place
they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who,
by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements
at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed
circumstances of contention ... was founded the healthy and
agreeable city of Monte Video. ... The inevitable consequence
of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two
countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty
between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles
stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her
establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for
which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as
the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But ... the
inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the
idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by
their slave-dealing atrocities. ... The result was that when
2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the
War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to
ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no
longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore
retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the
governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of
Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the
Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it
was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of
the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with
which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the
questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign
governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the
government of that colony; for it was still under the
superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima,
3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly
resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the
Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important
resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La
Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected
into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres.
... To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a
former governor of Buenos Ayres. ... The first act of Cevallos
was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the
most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil.
Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of
Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the
neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a
treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen
Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of
which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country,
whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay,
and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating
the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier
line. ... The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into
the provinces of--(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was
the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish
possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as
the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios,
and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was
Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of
Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del
Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine
provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca,
Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of
which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of
Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was
Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine
provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 13-14.
ALSO IN:
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17.
S. H. Wilcocke, History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos
Ayres.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
The English invasion.
The Revolution.
Independence achieved.
Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its
dissolution.
"The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since
the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla,
and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778;
but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became
aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to
do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that
millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte
Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would
soon see that their interests would be best served by
submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to
these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying
Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was
revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the
second European war in 1803. In 1806 ... he sent a squadron to
the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the
British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the
Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though
few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards,
terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without
knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When
they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford
in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to
evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took
possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river.
Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under
orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn,
to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent
connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the
long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore
invested a second time. But the English land forces were too
few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city
strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces
for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at
two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to
hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards,
who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they
capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two
months.
{127}
The English had imagined that the colonists would readily
flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This
was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead
the Spanish colonists to their independence. ... In 1810, when
it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the
Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the
colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of
the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to
carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went
over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the
feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful
to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders
of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General
Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle
stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into
Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers
carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but
these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the
Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and
capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and
even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to
establish a new government over the scattered and
half-civilized population of this vast country. ... The first
result of independence was the formation of a not very
intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of
the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the
existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal
government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this
functionary was little more than titular. How limited the
aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered
from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were
sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask
for an English protectorate; if possible under an English
prince. They were next to try the same plan in France,
Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain
still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the
colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being
made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty
aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the
Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord
Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do
anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain
itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was
powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing
into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when
Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general
congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at
Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should
unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of
the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in
imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing
for two legislative chambers and a president. ... The
influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces
were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and
Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme
Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres
thought their city destined to exercise over the rural
provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under
similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able
Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now
became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful
provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga,
soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of
Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them
of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore,
could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact
collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda
Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon
followed the example. For a long time the provinces were
practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the
only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos
Ayres itself."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
M. G. Mulhall, The English in South America, chapter 10-13,
and 16-18.
J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapter 3 (volume 1).
T. J. Page, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and
Paraguay, chapter 31.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
Anarchy, civil war, despotism.
The long struggle for order and Confederation.
"A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the
country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces.
Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was
elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil
war which had broken out during the government of his
predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director
General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of
Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was
declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty
to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially
proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military
chiefs who had seized the power, Gen. Martin Rodriguez was
named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in
establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J.
Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia--one of the most enlightened
Argentines of his times--as his Ministers. This
administration did a great deal of good by exchanging
conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into
diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his
term General Las Heras--9th May, 1824--took charge of the
government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the
Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and
elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated
Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine,
however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding
could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor
yet upon the place of residence for the national Government.
Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution--called
here 'unintarian'--and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be
declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress
held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the
resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this
event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would
include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each
Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected
Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its
Governor.
{128}
He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once
undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces,
opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba,
the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in
reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in
preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his
young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to
acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the
Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He
wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the
Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was
soon organized by the latter, under the command of General
Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete
victory over the Brazilian forces--twice their number--at the
plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande
do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several
occasions, so that when England offered her intervention,
Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the
convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties
agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and
independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few
sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from
Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to
fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There
he found aid from the Commander General of the country
districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion
with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires.
But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without
trial on the 13th December. ... Not only did the whole
interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle,
under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other
Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and
the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared
Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real
fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and
Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. ... The
legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on
account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas,
elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December
6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. ...
During this the first period of his government he did not
appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a
re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R.
Balcarce was then--17th December, 1832--named Governor, but
could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont
succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had
come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship
which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned
in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several
times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his
terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts
of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in
vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De
Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance
with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose
against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of
Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video--the asylum of the
adversaries of Rosas--from the army which besieged it, and
thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively
large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros,
near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same
day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English
war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he
went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime
Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces,
under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a
general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier
village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This
assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a
National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National
Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this
Constitution the Congress met again the following year at
Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital,
and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first
President of the Argentine Confederation. ... The important
province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the
deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th
September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather
against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had
taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province
from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes
utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé,
wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was
victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A
short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon--near the
site of the former battle--and Buenos-Aires won the day. This
secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious
General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years
from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government
was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter
was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic
owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that
he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with
Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in
it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of
Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868,
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded Gen. Mitre in the
Presidency. ... The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda
succeeded him in the Government."
R. Napp, The Argentine Republic, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
D. F. Sarmiento, Life in the Argentine Republic in the
Days of the Tyrants.
J. A. King, Twenty-four years in the Argentine
Republic.
{129}
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
The Constitution and its working.
Governmental corruption.
The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.
"The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form
corresponds closely to that of the United States. ... But the
inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and
political practice falls below the level of a self-governing
democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as
commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil
service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses
absolute authority in administration. The country is governed
by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws.
Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of
the civil service. ... President Roca [who succeeded
Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his
brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President
Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the
interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but
was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose.
... Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the
boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the
government of the day and exposed its corruption. ... The
government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not
trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity.
... This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one
important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the
capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If
the country had not been on the verge of a financial
revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the
Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and
disaster confronting them, men turned against the President
whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if
the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the
government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning
an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. ... The
government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of
the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión
Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a
terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez
Government. ... The revolution opened with every prospect of
success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to
co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of
the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For
four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or
purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government
palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the
suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent
forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the
government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General
Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the
situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of
refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army
were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the
volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and
children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion
passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of
President Juarez and the succession of vice-President
Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days
there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory
which nobody except General Roca understood. ... In June,
1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed
in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. ... All
business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been
diverted to Brazil. ... All industries were prostrated except
politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions
was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. ... During
thirty years the country has trebled its population, its
increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the
United States during the same period. The estimate of the
present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000
in 1857. ... Disastrous as the results of political government
and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its
ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a
magnificent railway system, an industrious working population
recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances
for progress."
I. N. Ford. Tropical America, chapter 6.
See CONSTITUTION, ARGENTINE.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1892.
Presidential Election.
Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,
was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.
----------ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------
ARGINUSAE, Battle of.
See GREECE: B. C. 406.
ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION, The.
"The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest
periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey.
The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason,
who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him,
enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers
which no ship had ever before encountered, are all
circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative
to Alkinous. ... Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest
of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had
carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle
to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of
the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês,
Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and
Lynkeus--Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of
Boreas--Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus,
Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas,
Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus,
Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were
among them. ... Since so many able men have treated it as an
undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic
chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long
ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that
the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of
fact, is one altogether fruitless."
G. Grote, History of Greece, volume 1, part 1, chapter 13.
"In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of
the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life
and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually
united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes
dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their
activity. ... The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a
variety of ports--from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and
Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion
by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof
of how homogeneous were the influences running on various
coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the
greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of
the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea--in other
words, a Greek history in Europe--begins."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2-3.
{130}
ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.--ARGIVES.
"No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of
powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern
peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa,
apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district,
is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the
foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast
Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's
march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient
fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire
to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear
evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days
of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several
principalities must have arisen by the side of one another,
each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some,
according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with
other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland
country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne
out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of
Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is
brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he
builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as
the first and mightiest in the land. ... The other line of the
Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus.
... [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the
new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself
essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion
of Apollo. ... Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the
family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian
fastness. ... During these divisions in the house of Danaus,
and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families
acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race
of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the
western coast of Peloponnesus--the Amythaonidæ. ... While the
dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the
native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in
savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping
the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the
country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS,
which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. ...
The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by
descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived
its origin from Lydia. ... The poetic myths, abhorring long
rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in
succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other,
viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat
of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of
Argos."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.
After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE
MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek
history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power
and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by
her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once
been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards
Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what
steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable
to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings
subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. ... The title [of
king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at
the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. ... There is some
ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that
time a Herakleid--since the Spartans offered to him a third
part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with
their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans
[about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion
of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the
remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to
them: the plain round their city was very productive; and,
except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus
superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both
to have been independent states at the time of the Persian
War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a
time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).
ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
Calamitous War with Sparta.
Non-action in the Persian War.
Slow recovery of the crippled State.
"One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the
hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six
years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with
Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king,
succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted
from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive
territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist
him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near
Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians
at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if
Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the
extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely
routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to
which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed
almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens
of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have
captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be,
hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The
loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for
some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at
the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause,
inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole
energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion
without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took
no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt
of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion.
Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising'
tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the
Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of
aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state
in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the
revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and
influence, which she at once employed and increased by the
harsh policy ... of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she
compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid
to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of
the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B.
C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle,
adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization.
As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is
known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of
other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though
there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian
party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at
an important crisis."
C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4).
{131}
ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.
League formed against Sparta.
Outbreak of War.
Defeat at Mantinea.
Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
The Corinthian War.
Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ARGOS: B. C. 371.
Mob outbreak and massacre of chief citizens.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
ARGOS: B. C. 338.
Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
ARGOS: B. C. 271.
Repulse and death of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
ARGOS: B. C. 229.
Liberated from Macedonian control.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ARGOS: A. D. 267.--Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
ARGOS: A. D. 395.--Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
ARGOS: A. D. 1463.
Taken by the Turks, retaken by the Venetians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
ARGOS: A. D. 1686.--Taken by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
----------ARGOS: End----------
ARGYRASPIDES, The.
"He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he
might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme
parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be
suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the
trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with
silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver
shields, Argyraspides."
Justin, History (translated by J. S. Watson),
book 12, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 58.
See, also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
ARGYRE.
See CHRYSE.
ARIA.--AREIOS.--AREIANS.
The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of
modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants
were known as the Areians.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.
ARIANA.
"Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations
of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the
whole eastern half of Iran."--Afghanistan and Beloochistan.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,
volume 5, book 7, chapter 1.
ARIANISM.--ARIANS.
From the second century of its existence, the Christian church
was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of
the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy
Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it
had been employed from the beginning of the second century,
when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of
men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the
divine nature. ... The Founder of the new religion, the Being
who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he
man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to
all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter
opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who
maintained it in a series of learned controversial works
between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had
quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the
people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place
of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the
Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to
acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused
the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by
rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator.
... It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body
of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the
populace in all the great cities (and especially at
Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the
monks of the desert ... were almost without exception
partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox.
... Constantine thought this question of dogma might be
decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325,
he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at
which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the
Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as
orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to
the flames."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4.
"The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] ... anxiously
sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the
rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and
consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and
ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the
homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the
Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their
theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly
embraced. ... The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
was established by the Council of Nice, and has been
unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian
faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and
the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the
Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to
gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became
friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the
later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were
ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were
subjected to persecution, which was directed with special
bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous
bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by
hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging
creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar
substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
Asia. ... The Greek word which was chosen to express this
mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the
orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided
the furious contests which the difference of a single
diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the
Homoiousians."
{132}
The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,
remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian
creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from
the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy
westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors--
Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves--through the influence of the
Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary
successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and
Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the
final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had
founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted
[A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain
was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary
conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 21 and 37.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian
orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded
its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.
See ROME: A. D. 379-395.
A. Neander, General History of Christian. Religion
and Church, translated by Torry, volume 2, section 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Alzog, Manual of Univ. Ch. History, section 110-114.
W. G. T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, book 3.
J. H. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century.
A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the
Eastern Church, lectures 3-7.
J. A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ, division 1 (volume 2).
See, also,
GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;
FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;
also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.
ARICA, Battle of (1880).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
ARICIA, Battle of.
A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497,
which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared
against the former.
Livy, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 26.
ARICIAN GROVE, The.
The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium,
near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early
league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 3.
Sir. W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
"On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the
precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is
perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana
Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. ... The site was excavated
in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at
Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations,
see the Athenæum, 10th October, 1885. For details of
the finds see 'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza
Archeologica,' 1885.--The lake and the grove were
sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town
of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three
miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. ... According to
one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by
Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric
Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy,
bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. ... Within
the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch
might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break
off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt
entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he
slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the
Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful
branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,
Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the
world of the dead. ... This rule of succession by the sword
was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other
freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held
office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."
J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, chapter 1, section 1.
ARICONIUM.
A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the
principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the
Forest of Dean.
T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
page 161.
ARII, The.
See LYGIANS.
ARIKARAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
ARIMINUM.
The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which
grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C.
295-191.--When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the
frontier of Cisalpine Gaul--the Rubicon--his first movement
was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three
weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had
now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had
ordered from Gaul.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 14.
ARIOVALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 626-638.
ARISTEIDES, Ascendancy of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
ARISTOCRACY.--OLIGARCHY.
"Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however,
this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of
excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government
is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in
nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with
taking the same terms in a relative sense, ... aristocracy ...
will be that form of government in which the ruling few are
distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth,
hereditary wealth, and personal merit. ... Whenever such a
change took place in the character or the relative position of
the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of
its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled
to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its
power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it
became a faction, an oligarchy."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.
ARISTOMNEAN WAR.
See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.
ARIZONA: The Name.
"Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the
native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley,
stream, or some other local feature--just south of the modern
boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters
of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de
Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century,
the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and
being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The
aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the
common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root
'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to
escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as
are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the
barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while
similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. ...
The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as
our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 12, page 520.
{133}
ARIZONA:
Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, SHOSHONEAN
FAMILY, AND UTAHS.
ARIZONA: A. D. 1848.
Partial acquisition from Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.
The Gadsden Treaty.
"On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister
to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was
moved southward so as to give the United States, for a
monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona
south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include
a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. ... On the face of the
matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory
settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United
States of a route for a southern railroad to California."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 12,
chapter 20.
----------ARIZONA: End----------
ARKANSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1542
Entered by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1803.
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
Detached from Missouri.
Organized as a Territory.
Admitted as a State.
"Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits
of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the
parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act
of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act
establishing a separate territorial government in the southern
portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated
was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial
government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and
distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed
first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas
Territory, and, at the period of its first organization,
contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its
limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the
Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between
the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of
the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to
the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of
Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The
population of this extensive territory for several years was
comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of
White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between
New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the
Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially
in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. ... So feeble was the
attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious,
and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the
Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization,
had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including
4,576 slaves. ... The western half of the territory had been
erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for
the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as
the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration
began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into
other portions of the southwest. ... The territory increased
rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the
whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630
slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had
doubled its population. ... The people, through the General
Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to
establish a regular form of state government. The assent of
Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to
meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the
purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same
was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following
the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as
an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the
twenty-fifth in the confederacy. ... Like the Missouri
Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the
earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro
slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the
new Constitution."
J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
the Mississippi, book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2).
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (March).
Secession voted down.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for
troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
Advance of National forces into the State.
Battle of Pea Ridge.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
Progress of the Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D.1862(December).
The Battle of Prairie Grove.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).
The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (July).
The defence of Helena.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).
The breaking of Confederate authority.
Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-Missouri).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).
Last important operations of the War.
Price's Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
{134}
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864.
First steps toward Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
ARKANSAS: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction completed.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------ARKANSAS: End----------
ARKITES, The.
A Canaanite tribe who occupied the plain north of Lebanon.
ARKWRIGHT'S SPINNING MACHINE, OR WATER-FRAME, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
ARLES: Origin.
See SALVES.
ARLES: A. D. 411.--Double siege.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
ARLES: A. D. 425.--Besieged by the Goths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.
ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
Siege by the Franks.
After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A.
D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at
Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the
Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against
the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations
the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the
siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some
graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries,
written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an
Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a
great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain.
"The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in
secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc
as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"--where the
Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson,
Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
ARLES: A. D. 933.
Formation of the kingdom.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.
The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in
France.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032, and 1127-1378.
ARLES: 1092-1207.
The gay court of Provence.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, and 1179-1207.
----------ARLES: End----------
ARMADA, The Spanish.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
ARMAGEDDON.
See MEGIDDO.
ARMAGH, St. Patrick's School at.
See IRELAND: 5th to 8th CENTURIES.
ARMAGNAC, The counts of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1327.
ARMAGNACS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1415-1419.
ARMENIA:
"Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a
high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches
eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and
41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a
continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is
connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion
of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia
Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from
west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or
longitudinal direction. ... The heart of the mountain-region,
the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to
the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of
Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst
these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep
and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and
occasional broad plains--a country of rich pasture grounds,
productive orchards, and abundant harvests--this interesting
people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of
the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of
the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing,
as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most
important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent
horses to the stud of the Persian king."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.
Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the
country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another
Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had
passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new
people had been formed--the real Armenians of later times,
and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on
the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards
under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about
190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a
branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was
subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established
which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of
these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier
part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front
rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia.
Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and
much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their
successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of
Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia
Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid
monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.
G. Rawlinson, Sixth and Seventh Great Oriental
Monarchies.
ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.
War with the Romans.
Great defeat at Tigranocerta
Submission to Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63.
ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.
Annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan and restored to
independence by Hadrian.
See ROME: A. D. 96-138.
ARMENIA: A. D. 422 (?).
Persian Conquest.
Becomes the satrapy of Persarmenia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ARMENIA: A. D. 1016-1073.
Conquest and devastation by the Seljuk Turks.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and 1063-1073.
ARMENIA: 12th-14th Centuries.
The Mediæval Christian Kingdom.
"The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of
two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long
outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military
orders; and which, with very little help from the West,
sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with
almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and
Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their
origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By
Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient
Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the
frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to
Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this
territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in
length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in
breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before
the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the
sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.
{135}
The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia
Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the
mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.
... Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the
Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from
the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and
had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of
the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the
Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession
of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of
Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little
respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be
gained. ... Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at
the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in
1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having
successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was
recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and
was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in
1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was
a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was
assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia
sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see
CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin
exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike
hostile."
William Stubbs, Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern
History, lecture 8.
ARMENIA: A. D. 1623-1635.
Subjugated by Persia and regained by the Turks,
See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
----------ARMENIA: End----------
ARMENIAN CHURCH, The.
The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national
churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The
Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their
prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same
time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he
was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned,
both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the
preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first
instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. ... By an
accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon
[A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in
words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at
that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence
of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that
Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person]
with sufficient clearness. ... It was not until eighty-four
years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the
doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and
an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5.
"The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the
learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired
with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings,
who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of
Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the
Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been
permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the
earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the
theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan
were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads
of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to
propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of
oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid;
they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white
turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry
of the Greeks."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ARMINIANISM.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
ARMINIUS, The Deliverance of Germany by.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8--A. D. 11.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS, Origin of.
"As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems
somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and
peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins
or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But
the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary
distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments,
wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;
sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations
and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote
the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar
symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been
borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps
scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the
thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very
general."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 2.
ARMORICA.
The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the
mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany,
and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as
Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in
Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth
centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier
of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or
Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The
commotions of the third century, which continued to increase
during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from
that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a
regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had
the protectorate, but this is wrong."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and
Geography, volume 2, page 318.
ALSO IN:
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
volume 2, page 235.
See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, and IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.
ARMSTRONG, General John, and the Newburgh Addresses.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.
ARMSTRONG, General John: Secretary of War.
Plan of descent on Montreal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
ARMY, The Legal Creation of the British.
See MUTINY ACTS.
ARMY PURCHASE, Abolition of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
ARNÆANS, The.
See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
{136}
ARNAULD, Jacqueline Marie, and the Monastery of Port Royal.
See PORT ROYAL and the JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
ARNAUTS, The.
See ALBANIANS, MEDIÆVAL.
ARNAY-LE-DUC, Battle of (1570).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
ARNOLD, Benedict, and the American Revolution.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY);
1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER);
1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
ARNOLD OF BRESCIA, The Republic of.
See ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED, at the Battle of Sempach.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
ARNULF,
King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;
King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.
AROGI, Battle of (1868).
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
ARPAD, Dynasty of.
See HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE;
and HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114; 1114-1301.
ARPAD, Siege of.
Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning
B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought
with it the submission of all northern Syria.
A. H. Sayce, Assyria, chapter 2.
ARQUES, Battles at (1589).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
ARRABIATI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
ARRAPACHITIS.
See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.
ARRAPAHOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
ARRAS: Origin.
See BELGÆ.
ARRAS: A.. D. 1583.
Submission to Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
ARRAS: A. D. 1654.
Unsuccessful Siege by the Spaniards under Condé.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
----------ARRAS: End----------
ARRAS, Treaties of (1415 and 1435).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1431-1453.
ARRETIUM, Battle of (B. C. 285).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
ARROW HEADED WRITING.
See CUNEIFORM WRITING.
ARSACIDÆ, The.
The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder
of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the
rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne.
According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian;
according to others a Scythian.
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3.
ARSEN.
In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into
Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was
destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia
Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise
transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern
Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses
belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have
contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to
capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it.
The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at
Armenian commerce."
E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 2.
ARSENE, Lake.
An ancient name of the Lake of Van, which is also called
Thopitis by Strabo.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 22. section 1.
ARTABA, The.
See EPHAH.
ARTAXATA.
The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under
the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.
At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman
Emperor Nero.
ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.
ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.
ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.
ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
ARTEMISIUM, Sea fights at.
See GREECE: B. C. 480.
ARTEMITA.
See DASTAGERD.
ARTEVELD, Jacques and Philip Van:
Their rise and fall in Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337, to 1382.
ARTHUR, King, and the Knights of the Round Table.
"On the difficult question, whether there was a historical
Arthur or not, ... a word or two must now be devoted; ... and
here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh
literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor,
and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case
he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the
departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that
of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so
called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever
his presence might be called for. The other military captains
here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces
in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes
Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was
entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the
island. The successors of both these captains seem to have
been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's
suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense
superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called
emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin
title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,'
later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the
Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this
country, the title was given to the highest officer in the
island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr
Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of
our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be
regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's
position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of
his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that
wrote the Historia Brittonum ascribed to him: there
Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of
the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being
their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the
uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by
Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than
Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called
Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the
island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were
called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great
ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig.
{137}
On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle
of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest
that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious
than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever
that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above
them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and
romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this
hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic
Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom
the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case
it was of a different origin, may have become identical in
sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations
are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside
for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a
god of that name, let us see what could be made of him.
Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded
as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the
Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader
of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in
somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did
to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually
given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may
be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of
Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while
Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around
which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting
to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On
the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness
that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly
means that Arthur's court was the first early court where
those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing
as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other
described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies,
we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to
Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well
with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to
ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended
history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it
back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under
one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all
culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the
Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might
be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus
and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time
to time."
J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend, chapter 1.
See, also CUMBRIA.
ARTHUR, Chester A.
Election to Vice-Presidency.
Succession to the Presidency.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880 and 1881.
ARTI OF FLORENCE.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (American).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, and 1783-1787.
ARTICLES OF HENRY, The.
See POLAND: A. D. 1573.
ARTOIS, The House of.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
ARTOIS: A. D. 1529.
Pretensions of the King of France to Suzerainty resigned.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
ARTYNI.
See DEMIURGI.
ARVADITES, The.
The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad,
and who also held territory on the main land.
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History,
book 6, chapter 1.
ARVERNI, The.
See ÆDUI;
also, GAULS, and ALLOBROGES.
ARX, The.
See CAPITOLINE HILL;
also GENS, ROMAN.
ARXAMUS, Battle of.
One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with
the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 24.
ARYANS.--ARYAS.
"This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or
descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among
Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may
seem strange that we English should be related not only to the
Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians,
French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still
that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the
Persians and Hindus. ... What seems actually to have been the
case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus
and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range
called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the
nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and
united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but
yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a
common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a
word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant
those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came
to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on
whom, of course, they would look down. ... As their numbers
increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for
them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then
began a series of migrations, in which the collection of
tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started
off to seek their fortune in new lands. ... First among them,
in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,
travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North
of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on
to the extreme West. ... Another of the great families who
left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic.
These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West,
passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and
Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the
Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the
Romans. ... Next we come to two other great families of
nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and
perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans
did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. ... The word Slave
comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and
was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who
could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were
not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as
dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in
obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of
babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"
C. F. Keary, Dawn of History, chapter 4.
{138}
The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan
family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified
form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following:
"The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which
it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan,
Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and
Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over
the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly
passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their
languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. ...
The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or
parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic
period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor
Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated
Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was--where could it have
been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it
necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the
neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it
somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then
Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic
theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to
deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive
the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards
Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to
the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and
beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for
lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans
must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. ... As
might be expected in the case of such a difficult question,
those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of
the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the
spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of
Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a
district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian;
Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great
plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of
Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the
Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka
on Scandinavia."
J. Rhys, Race Theories
(in New Princeton Review, January, 1888).
"Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to
race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we
speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no
more than X + Aryan speech. ... I have declared again and
again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor
hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan
language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,
Celts and Slaves. ... In that sense, and in that sense only,
do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier
stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest
Scandinavians. ... If an answer must be given as to the place
where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,
whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered
tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago,
'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."
F. Max Müller, Biog. of Words and Home of the Aryas,
chapter 6.
The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans
are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in The Origin of the
Aryans, by G. H. Rendall, in The Cradle of the
Aryans, and by Dr. O. Schrader in Prehistoric
Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples.
See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
AS.--LIBRA.--DENARIUS.--SESTERTIUS.
"The term As [among the Romans] and the words which
denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but
were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in
general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of
twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote
shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of
weight the As, or Libra, "occupied the same position in
the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to
the most accurate researches, the As was equal to about
11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It
"was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ
was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The
As, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed,
as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins
those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By
degrees; however, the weight of the As, regarded as a
coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the
commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12
ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war
(B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long
afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce,
which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of
Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16
Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became,
respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in
value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is.
estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence
sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the
Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius
Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13.
ASCALON, Battle of (A. D. 1099).
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
ASCANIENS, The.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
ASCULUM, Battle of (B. C. 279).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
ASCULUM, Massacre at.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
ASHANTEE WAR, The (1874).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880
ASHBURTON TREATY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
ASHDOD.
See PHILISTINES.
ASHRAF, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1725-1730.
ASHTI, Battle of (1818).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
{139}
ASIA: The Name.
"There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have
originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively.
Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from
the Phœnicians. ... The Greeks first applied the title [Asia]
to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to
them, and with which they became first acquainted--the coast
of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it
as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special
application to the country about Ephesus."
G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 3, page 33.
ASIA:
The Roman Province (so called).
"As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions
of the kings of Pergamus ... left by the will of Attalus III.
to the Roman people (B. C. 133). ... It included the whole of
Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small
part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not
the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however,
was detached from it."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1.
ASIA: Central.
Mongol Conquest.
See MONGOLS.
ASIA:
Turkish Conquest.
See TURKS.
ASIA:
Russian Conquests.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876, and 1869-1881.
ASIA MINOR:
"The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient
geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers
until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth
century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer
who employs the term in its modern sense."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,
chapter 7, section 2.
The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with
"The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among
the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by
their successors, the Turks.
ASIA MINOR:
Earlier Kingdoms and People.
See
PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.
LYDIANS.
CARIANS.
LYCIANS.
BITHYNIANS.
PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).
PAPHLAGONIANS.
TROJA.
ASIA MINOR:
The Greek Colonies.
"The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the
Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the
population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not
subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and
the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their
ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or
Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes
in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia
Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When
at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from
Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands,
was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or
tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians,
Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien
elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same
tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on
the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies.
... Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the
north. The precise limits of their territory were differently
fixed by different authorities. ... The Aeolic cities fell
into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre,
and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate
neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.--The
northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In
the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna,
Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was
subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. ... The
second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after
the death of Codrus--see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO
B. C. 683--according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of
Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first
to the Carian city of Miletus--see MILETUS,--which they
captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island
of Samos]. ... The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was
established, similar to the union which the Ionians had
founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of
Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a
minority. ... The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in
the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was
not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one
life-time. ... The two most famous of the Ionian cities were
Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously
known as Anactoria. ... Ephesus was originally in the hands of
the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the
Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary
goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a
temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of
birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than
Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were
Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which
finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae,
Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios.
"Chios was first inhabited by Cretans ... and subsequently by
Carians. ... Of the manner in which Chios became connected
with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. ...
The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the
southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the
Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian
occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. ...
Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the
Aegean [see CRETE]. ... The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that
in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the
command of Althaemenes. ... Other islands colonised by the
Dorians were Thera, ... Melos, ... Carpathus, Calydnae,
Nisyrus, and Cos. ... From the islands, the Dorians spread to
the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first
settlement. ... Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and
the Ionian element must have been considerable. ... Of the
Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on
the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and
Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus
and Cnidus. . . . The territory which the Aeolians acquired is
described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by
the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited
by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were
the chief. ... In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the
Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not
occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the
town of the same name ... near Lampsacus, and also formed the
subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this
once famous nation.
{140}
But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems,
and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places
in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of
the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents
any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the
Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was
divided--or, at least, later historians speak of it as
divided--into principalities which recognised Priam as their
chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its
eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever
the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed
by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic
poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in
wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. ...
The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in
Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war.
... We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of
Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of
the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician
power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C.
From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks
were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. ... By 1100
B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks,
though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes
and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."
E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
E. Curtius, History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapters 13-15.
J. A. Cramer, Geography and History Description of Asia
Minor, section 6 (volume 1).
See, also, MILETUS, PHOCÆANS.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.
Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest
and annexation to the Persian Empire.
"The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to
wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not
the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was
considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at
length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence
the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who
had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the
Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and
exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the
Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw
hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason
to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered
their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS].
... But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a
powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital
was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the
first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS),
whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned
his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a
century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to
reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C.
568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he
made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia
excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and
Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but,
according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled
not with their political institutions, and they might deem
themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the
payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover,
cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus
was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his
kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire
then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during
his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from
the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they
incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now
sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the
same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian
monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to
prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and
sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus,
being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for
the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who
had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages,
came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the
cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians
abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the
Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return,
sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the
Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy,
and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of
Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian
empire."
T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
Herodotus, History, translated and edited by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, and appendix
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 6-7 (volume 6).
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 501-493.
The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 479.
Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.
See ATHENS: B. C.479-478.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 477.
Formation of Confederacy of Delos.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.
Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.
Conspiracy against Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 412.
Re-submission to Persia.
See PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.
Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten
Thousand.
See PERSIA: B. C.401-400.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.
Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.
Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 334.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 301.
Mostly annexed to the Thracian Kingdom of Lysimachus.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.
Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.
Changes of masters.
See SELEUCIDÆ.
{141}
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.
First Entrance of the Romans.
Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.
Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of
Rhodes.
See SELEUCIDÆ B. C. 224-187.
ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.
Mithridates and his kingdom.
Massacre of Italians.
Futile revolt from Rome.
Complete Roman Conquest.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
also ROME: B. C.78-68. and 69-63.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 292.
Diocletian's seat of Empire established at Nicomedia.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 602-628.
Persian invasions.
Deliverance by Heraclius.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1063-1092.
Conquest and ruin by the Seljuk Turks.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and 1073-1092.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1097-1149.
Wars of the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1147-1149.
ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1204-1261.
The Empire of Nicæa and the Empire of Trebizond.
See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.
----------ASIA MINOR: End----------
ASIENTO, OR ASSIENTO, The.
See
SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;
UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ASKELON.
See PHILISTINES.
ASKLEPIADS.
"Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the
descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and
widely diffused. The many families or gentes called
Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice
of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of
Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain
relief--all recognized the god, not merely as the object of
their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9.
ASMONEANS, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
ASOPIA.
See SICYON.
ASOV.
See AZOF.
ASPADAN.
The ancient name of which that of Ispahan is a corrupted form.
G. Rawlinson. Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
ASPERN--ESSLINGEN (OR THE MARCHFELD), Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ASPIS, The.
See PHALANX.
ASPROMONTE, Defeat of Garibaldi at (1862).
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
ASSAM, English Acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ASSANDUN, Battle of.
The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund
Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or
Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly
defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the
field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund
soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the
battle-ground.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
ASSASSINATIONS, Notable.
Abbas, Pasha of Egypt.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
Alexander II. of Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
Beatoun, Cardinal.
See SCOTLAND: A, D. 1546.
Becket, Thomas.
See ENGLAND: A. D.1162-1170,
Buckingham.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Cæsar.
See ROME; B. C. 44.
Capo d'Istrea, Count, President of Greece.
See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
Cavendish, Lord Frederick, and Burke, Mr.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.
Concini.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
Danilo, Prince of Montenegro (1860).
See MONTENEGRO.
Darnley.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Francis of Guise.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
Garfield, President.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.
Gustavus III. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
Henry of Guise.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry III. of France.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry IV. of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1600.
Hipparchus.
See ATHENS: B. C, 560-510.
John, Duke of Burgundy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Kleber, General.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
Kotzebue.
See GERMANY; A. D. 1817-1820.
Lincoln, President.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
Marat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).
Mayo, Lord.
See INDIA; A. D. 1862-1876.
Murray, The Regent.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Omar, Caliph.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 661.
Paul, Czar of Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
Perceval, Spencer.
See ENGLAND; A. D. 1806-1812.
Peter III.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
Prim, General (1870).
See SPAIN. A. D. 1866-1843.
Rizzio.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
Rossi, Count.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Wallenstein (1634).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
William the Silent.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
Witt, John and Cornelius de.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674.
ASSASSINS, The.
"I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe
of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during
the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all
Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied
in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however
there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's History of
Mohammedanism. The word Assassin, it must be remembered,
in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and
not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they
were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the
Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has
been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application
is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th
century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty,
but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of
Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were
originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN
CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the
principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their
inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion
and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything'
was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle,
addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was
simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the
Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the
dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to
throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise.
... Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly
before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of
Alamout--the Vulture's nest--in northern Persia, whence they
extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain
fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was
the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at
whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the, Saracens,
lecture 4.
{142}
"In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or
Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To
kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an
action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the
reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the
Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered
Alamut until that of his death--a period of thirty-five
years--he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the
seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny,
he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself
invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused
a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more
than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful
organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by
the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the
Caliphate out of existence.
R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
part 3, chapter 3.
W. C. Taylor, History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
chapter 9.
The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in
Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically
exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or
Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the
Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was
demolished.
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 193;
and part 3, pages 91-108.
See BAGDAD; A. D. 1258.
ASSAYE, Battle of (1803).
See INDIA; A. D. 1798-1803.
ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
ASSENISIPIA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1784.
ASSIDEANS, The.
See CHASIDM, THE.
ASSIENTO, The.
See ASIENTO.
ASSIGNATS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL);
1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
ASSINARUS, Athenian defeat and surrender at the.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
ASSINIBOIA.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ASSINIBOINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
ASSIZE, The Bloody.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).
ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.
The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or
enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th
century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale
regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and
oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the
beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London
and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"--that is, early
in the present century.
G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce,
volume 1, page 137.
ASSIZE OF CLARENDON, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM, The.
"No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem,
after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D.
1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he
solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims
who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of
Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation
of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey
composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of
feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of
the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was
deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the
improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted
as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of
Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the
fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous
tradition and variable practice till the middle of the
thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John
d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories;
and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen
hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of
Cyprus."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ASSIZES.
"The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the
Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the
Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the
only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of
Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of
new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, ... In
this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the
Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman
prætors. ... The term Assize, which comes into use in this
meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the
continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name
for such edicts. ... In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply
means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily,
it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as
the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly
the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is
commonly used at the present day."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13.
ASSUR.
See ASSYRIA.
ASSYRIA.
For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is
referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.
The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will
go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding
to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history
and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible
that the time between the publication of our first volume and
our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty
literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the
sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light
large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,--sacred
and historical writings, official records, business contracts
and many varieties of inscriptions,--have almost
revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of
antiquity derived from it.
{143}
"M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,
was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the
buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the
first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced
his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but
he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New
at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked
in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself
with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving
unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at
Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad
by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party
of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days
his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some
sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he
transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly
explored that site. ... The palace which M. Botta had
discovered ... is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings
yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian
architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.
Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch
decorated by six winged bulls. ... The operations of M. Botta
were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of
sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,
arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.
Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at
Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his
predecessor. ... Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned
in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards
took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At
length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of
Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria
himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and
descended the Tigris to Nimroud. ... Mr. Layard has described
in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,
and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. ...
After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited
Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.
On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were
continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of
Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.
Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various
sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum
receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected
in the national museums of France and England, and the
numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of
the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on
the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria
and Babylonia."
G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, chapter 1.
"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. ... The
bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the
long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the
greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction
of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions
conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the
later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the
stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the
British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to
light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."
A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies:
The Second Monarchy, chapter 9.
Mr. Duncker, History of Antiquity, books 3-4.
George Smith, Ancient History from the Monuments:
Assyria.
See, also, BABYLONIA and SEMITES.
ASSYRIA, Eponym Canon of.
"Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who
were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a
custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they
called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' ... Babylonian and Assyrian
documents were more generally dated by the names of these
eponyms than by that of the reigning King. ... In 1862 Sir
Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of
Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important
discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great
many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up.
Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from
these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled
from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."
E. A. W. Budge, Babylonian Life and History, chapter 3.
ASTOLF, King of the Lombards, A. D. 749-759.
ASTRAKHAN:
The Khanate.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
ASTRAKHAN: A. D. 1569.
Russian repulse of the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
ASTURIANS, The.
See CANTABRIANS.
ASTURIAS:
Resistance to the Moorish Conquest.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
ASTY, OR ASTU, The.
The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its
connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.
J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.
See also, ATHENS: AREA, &c.
A Logical Outline of Athenian and Greek History
[Red ] Physical or material.
[Blue ] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.
In which the dominant conditions and influences
are distinguished by colors.
The Land
The most capable people of early times, placed in the most
favorable environment that the world in those times could offer
them, worked out a civilization--perfect in all refinements
except the moral--which has been the admiration and the marvel of
later days.
Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no
marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer
struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to
hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse
were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its
separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its
clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure
to their social and political advance. In no other region of
Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have
grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid
influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.
It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had
much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the
Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one
another in their various political groups, and by differences
that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or
sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which
distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth,
or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned, the Athenian
is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from
the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by
calling it family or race.
Ionians and Dorians.
At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of
kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of
descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided
streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very
different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in
time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the
traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race
(the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact
again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited
nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them
more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared
them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy
and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own.
In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal
measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they
narrowed it to commoner aims.
Achaians.--Mycenæ.
It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their
elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of
Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,--washed by the
same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were
first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to
borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their
civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer
portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact
that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground,
remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final
masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the
strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two
branches of the race.
Sparta.-Athens.
By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon
the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the
Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city
with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius
and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the
civilization of the ancient world.
In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which
kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the
kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,--the oligarchy in time, was
overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the
people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a
"tyrant,"--and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign.
In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end
as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest
democracy that has ever had trial in the world.
Æthel democracy.
That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to
doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its
great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it
from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free
institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who
raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the
government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the
annals of so small a state.
Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a
great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the
larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which
inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the
Persians back.
B.C. 498-479. The Persian War.
B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.
B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.
Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian
War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of
a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia
Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded
the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as
she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers
overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers
and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble
prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her
abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art,
which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and
since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from
which they came.
B. C. 431-404. Peloponnesian War.
But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly
and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without
generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects,
and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time
was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down
from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden
age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were
given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the
republic.
B.C. 404-379--Sparta
B.C. 379-362--Thebes
Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination,
imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of
Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes--the
most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race--the
Spartan yoke was broken.
B.C. 338--Macedonian supremacy.
But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all
hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared
was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole
peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as
the orator Demosthenes.
B. C. 384-328.
Alexander's conquests.
Hellenization of the East.
But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their
career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and
higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he
made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They
Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria,
and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every
field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of
thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the
intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing
force.
B. C. 197-146.--Roman conquest.
Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit
of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the
Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from
history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her
teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry
it wherever the Roman eagles went.
Christianity.
A little later, when that civilization was changed by the
transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to
be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in
the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought
ruled mankind again in an altered phase.
A. D. 476-1458.--The Eastern Empire.
At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece
drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and
fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a
thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew
strong and stood in peril no more.
{144}
ASTYNOMI.
Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number.
"They were charged with all that belongs to street
supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which
purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their
orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the
streets."
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
ASUNCION: A. D. 1537.
The founding of the city.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.
"From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of
Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more
than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of
petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking
advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and
of the distractions which followed their final extinction,
established their authority over some of the finest provinces
of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a
local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their
memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they
ruled. ... The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word
of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a
governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."
Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, volume 1; chapter 9.
"It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as
actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of
princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor
unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria
and Persia at the time they flourished."-
W. H. Morley, Preface to Mirkhond's History of the
Atabeks.
See, also, SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
ATAHUALPA, The Inca.
See PERU: A. D. 1581-1533.
ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
and (APRIL-DECEMBER).
ATHABASCA, The District of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
ATHABASCANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHABASCAN FAMILY.
ATHALAYAS.
See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.
ATHEL.--ATHELING.--ATHELBONDE,
See ADEL.
ATHENRY, Battle of.
The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the
English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered
and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred
Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.
M. Haverty, History of Ireland, p, 282.
----------ATHENRY: End----------
ATHENS:
ATHENS:
The Preëminence of Athens.
"When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. ... To
citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and
dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life
itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from
which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant
lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as
a mere dialect but as the language of literature,--a thing
unknown in the history of any other people,--the Attic idiom,
in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and
were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the
very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital
of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name
applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is
Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here
found a centre and a focus."
S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of the Greek Genius, pages 38-39.
"Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in
details but in large masses. It matters little how early the
Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to
Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens,
the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not
so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates
of uninteresting tribes and towns."
ATHENS:
Area and Population.
"The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens
proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure,
is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is
very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom
states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an
estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the
peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the
numbers of Thucydides. ... Rome was circular, Syracuse
triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities,
joined by a street of four miles in length,--a figure, the
superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that
of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form.
Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of
equal extent, its population was greater than that of all
Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in
Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.
Ionian Origin.
See DORIANS AND IONIANS.
ATHENS:
The Beginning of the city-state.
How Attica was absorbed in its capital.
"In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down
to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes,
having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of
alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the
king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together
in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to
war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with
Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a
powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in
the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and
separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica
in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall.
They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled
them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward
they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great
city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his
descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have
regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or
'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè.
Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground
lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be
urged in proof of this statement."
Thucydides, History (Jowett's translation), book 2,
section 15.
ALSO IN:
M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).
{145}
![[Image: Map]](images/History_0145.jpg)
PLAN OF ATHENS.
From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,"
by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.
[Image: Map]
HARBORS OF ATHENS.
{146}
ATHENS:
From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.
End of kingship and institution of the Archons.
At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both
from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the
refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia.
... When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is
again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal
house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from
Peloponnesus. ... A generation later the Dorian invasion,
which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the
Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An
oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler
perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus
disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp,
struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the
second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate
the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the
title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded
him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or
'ruler.' ... These legends evidently cover some obscure
changes in the internal history of Attica."
C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapter 11.
"After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage,
perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between
his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to
have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however,
seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new,
precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as
it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was,
indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus,
transmitted it to his posterity. ... After twelve reigns,
ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the
office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or
calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house
of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme
magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This
change was speedily followed by one much more important. ...
The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single
year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were
severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among
these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of
the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He
represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar
jurisdiction--that which had belonged to the king as the
common parent of his people, the protector of families, the
guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights
of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king
[basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the
functions assigned to him were those most associated with
ancient recollections. He represented the king as the
high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the
mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes
which affected the interests of religion. ... The third archon
bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king
as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who
watched over its security in time of peace. ... The remaining
six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which
literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to
them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes
which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues;
because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare
and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.
"We are in no condition to determine the civil classification
and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of
the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian
chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any
knowledge of the anterior centuries. ... All the information
which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from
authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by
Solon, and later]--and who, finding no records, nor anything
better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as
they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally
attached to the dominant legendary names."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.
ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, part 3, chapter 3.
ATHENS: B. C. 624.
Under the Draconian Legislation.
"Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set
down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and
thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or
less generality. In the later and better-known times of
Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure
of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the
task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence,
next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate
dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no
separation of powers; the archons both judged and
administered.... All of these functionaries belonged to the
Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the
narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room
for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy
on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case,
and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the
duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in
writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be
'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with
the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle
finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of
the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness
of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we
are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special
inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested
with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and
cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe
laws of his own invention. ... The general spirit of penal
legislation had become so much milder, during the two
centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared
to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3).
{147}
ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
Conspiracy of Cylon.
Banishment of the Alcmæonids.
The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical
government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C.
612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant
of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by
the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of
Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender;
but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess
Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to
retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was
effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in
their hands as they passed out through the midst of their
enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at
once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from
them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though
they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The
treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to
have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved
in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect
upon it. Megacles and his whole family--the Alcmæonids as they
were called, from the name of one of their ancestors--were
held accountable for the affront to the gods and were
considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was
ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial,
they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.),
while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out.
The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence
on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and
his constitutional reforms.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.
ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.
ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
Struggle with Megara for Salamis.
Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.
"The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages,
had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of
her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the
latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian
government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without
bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to
the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and
defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than
unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce
the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden,
upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian
claims. ... Many of the younger portion of the community,
pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for
enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any
stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At
this time there went a report through the city that a man of
distinguished birth ... had incurred the consecrating
misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the
market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that
distinguished the sick. ... Ascending the stone from which the
heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a
poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice
of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed
insanity protected him from the law--his rank, reputation, and
the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis,
conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and
the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly
proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the
address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of
Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. ... The stratagem and
the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his
spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm
permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect
the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned,
and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief
struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. ... But the
brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened
by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest--losses
were sustained on either side, and at length both states
agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the
island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal
from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece
had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an
extension of the sense of justice. ... The arbitration of the
umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and
the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards
they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so
tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in
this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in
the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a
town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race,
who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi,
sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to
possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece
had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the
Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the
Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the
altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the
tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the
Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi
inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The
war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at
the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer
makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The
besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be
reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the
territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the
superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that
the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands
of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore
advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to
dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The
advice was adopted--Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became
thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had
the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the
waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. ... The Pythian games commenced, or
were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."
Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
book 2, chapter 1.
See, also, DELPHI.
{148}
ATHENS: B. C. 594.
The Constitution of Solon.
The Council of Four Hundred.
"Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and
moderation are described by the ancients as the
characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the
privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of
officers, and to render all the participators in civil and
political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same
time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to
which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was
far from contemplating a total subversion of existing
regulations. ... Whatever was excellent in prescription was
incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but
prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten
religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force.
The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every
member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule
of conduct."
W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
section 46 (volume 1).
"The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was
Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties
corresponding to the geographical division of the country,
which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants
of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali,
on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at
their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the
people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or
Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great
majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief
only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen,
have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he
preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused
himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid
of the house ... of Codrus."
C. F. Hermann, Manual of the Political
Antiquities of Greece, chapter 5, section 106.
"The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in
order that it might be exercised with advantage it was
necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of
citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class
from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those
who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by
rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. ... This
change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be
regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but
as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one
was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford
relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in
amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of
interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the
former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be
reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested
possession of his legal rights. ... A second ordinance
enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored
to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute
criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which
had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that
time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to
Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon
were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close
connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a
proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the
validity of the new citizenship. ... The right of
naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when
6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure,
but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the
privileges of citizenship. ... The statement that Solon
received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every
artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as
Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated
the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci ... probably took the
place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of
sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed
them. ... The servile order, exclusively consisting of
purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body,
stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves
became the property of individual citizens, but a certain
number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were
abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive
taskmasters. ... Those who were manumitted stood upon the
footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming
their Prostatæ. ... Upon attaining the age of puberty, the
sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi.
The state gave them two years for the full development of
their youthful strength. ... Upon the expiration of the
second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their
eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the
popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of
those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos
took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of
which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the
space of one or two years performed military service in the
Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The
ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book
which contained the names of those who had attained majority;
this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune,
preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and
speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria,
Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation
denoted the difference between him and the silent member of
the assembly, the Idiotes. ... Upon attaining his 30th year,
the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified
for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. ... The
word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen
who has fully attained maturity. ... The judges of the courts
of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of
the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men
than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon
appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according
to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of
state. ... Upon the principle of a conditional equality of
rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and
which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general,
he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these
were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of
wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of
a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation,
however, only affected that portion of capital from which
contributions to the state-burthens were required,
consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. ... The
Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned
to perform military service, but only exercised the civic
right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; ... the
highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such
as the archonship, and through this the council of the
Areopagus. ... In lieu of the former council of
administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon
instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the
first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person
under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were
renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and
such as were deemed eligible drew lots."
W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
section 46-47 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3, section 4.
E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 11, chapter 3.
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11.
Plutarch, Solon.
Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens
(translated by E. Poste), chapters 5-13.
See, also,
AREOPAGUS, PRYTANES, HELIÆA, and DEBT.
{149}
ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.
The tyranny of the Pisistratidæ.
"The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be
insufficient even in his own life-time. ... The poor citizens
were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform
of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the
lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of
Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General
Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses
which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment
and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided
Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with
even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by
Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus,
the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the
Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his
family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of
Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood
Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who
... had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war.
As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon,
Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants
of the adjacent hills. ... Solon watched the failure of his
hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the
leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to
the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers.
With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the
most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved
general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men
who had nothing to lose. ... Pisistratus met the vehement
expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place.
The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his
life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an
unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous
discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people
allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of
fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he
threw off all disguises, and established himself in the
Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. ... Herodotus tells
us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not
alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The
Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet,
though it is improbable that either the one or the other was
allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The
archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the
city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the
Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the
Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the
administration for his family or his adherents." Twice,
however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination
of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first
instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was
compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus
remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his
death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias,
with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were
associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon
made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed
against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in
taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C.,
with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from
the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids,
was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his
guidance that the Athenian democratic
constitution was reorganized.
E. Abbott, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11 and 30.
ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
The constitution of Cleisthenes.
Advance of democracy.
"The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical
party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.
The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,
though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,
which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. ...
Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,
unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his
ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which
Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.
His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage
over his rivals; he planned an important change in the
constitution, which should forever break the power of his
whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which
their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the
confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the
Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made
a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,
each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The
ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,
called demes, each containing a town or village. ...
Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;
but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the
tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political
importance. ... Cleisthenes at the same time increased the
strength of the commonalty by making a great many new
citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only
aliens--and these both residents and adventurers from
abroad--but slaves. ... The whole frame of the state was
reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.
{150}
The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,
that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of
the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty
councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five
or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being
elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the
Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called
regularly four times in the month, certain business being
assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into
ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most
of the public offices, though the number of the archons
remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal
institution of the ostracism. ... These changes, and the
influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of
Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of
maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,
accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings
of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by
assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes
responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],
which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming
dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with
an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by
banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then
proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to
lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his
friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted
this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and
Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and
besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a
siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and
Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian
troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to
the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and
Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned
triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a
force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The
Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit
the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of
it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the
Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it
up.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31.
E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 15.
Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens
(translated by E. Poste), chapter 20-22.
ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.
Help solicited from the Persian king.
Subjection refused.
Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.
Protest of the Corinthians.
Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.
"With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a
deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias
was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian
king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to
anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the
Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an
independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on
being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of
Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance
if they would give him earth and water,--in other words, if
they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand
of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was
indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens.
... Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast
down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal
insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be
despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including
the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis
in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from
Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign.
He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring
that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous
errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King,
Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion
broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their
enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who
won a series of victories over the Boiotians and
Euboians"--completely overthrowing the latter--the
Chalcidians--taking possession of their city, and making it a
peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.--See KLERUCHS. The
anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the
defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at
the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had
been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian
priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him
and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce
in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their
freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own.
Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians
with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias
at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who
were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot."
The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought
their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy,
with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the
Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans
thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for
themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to
convince them that the time was coming "in which they would
find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his
exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested
unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the
internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished
tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."
G. W. Cox, The Greeks and the Persians, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).
{151}
ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.
Aid to Ionians against Persia.
Provocation of King Darius.
His wrath and attempted vengeance.
The first Persian invasions.
Battle of Marathon.
"It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion
over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the
onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as
if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the
Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was
of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after
defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent
for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with
which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia
and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to
unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a
great campaign against the Scythians. ... The Greeks were his
best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by
which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats
over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's
territory. The result was not one which could properly be
called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful
character. ... A great region, in which they had already
obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once
more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the
Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the
dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia,
one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do
homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust
back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even
into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern
Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that
the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper
home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek
islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at
issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants.
... The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was
not a person of any great importance. It is not always great
natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own
powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the
work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of
contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the
other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. ...
Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range
of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an
imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought
of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all
the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a
great and successful offensive war upon them. ... He announced
in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to
the people of their old laws. ... A general overthrow of
tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia,
and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in
the cities was based upon a good understanding between the
holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these
rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the
signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily
renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to
take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the
same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with
Persia. ... The cities and islands which had so often been
forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by
their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have
expected so much. ... He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of
the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with
him in his plans. ... Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook
himself to Athens. ... The Athenians granted Aristagoras
twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to
Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus
revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced,
directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in
their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which
imposed on them their heaviest burdens. ... By the burning of
Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the
Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods.
We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take
the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the
great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the
world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult
calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made
no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the
Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been
informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had
scarcely heard. ... The enterprise of Aristagoras had
meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger
part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All
the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in
revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first
concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if
attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their
first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the
advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were
assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. ... It
must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade,
by which the combination against the Persian empire had been
annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having
consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan
of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise
against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this
project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the
empire and the court, ... Mardonius by name, whom he united to
his family by marrying him to his daughter. ... This general
crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always
accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the
mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the
districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been
brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was
directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king.
... In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always
made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered
ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to
gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a
promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he
found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his
undertakings to another time. ... In order to subdue the
recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt
was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom,
Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the
satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius
who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was
undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and
the maritime districts.
{152}
It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in
general. ... Their design was to utilize the internal
dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon
whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them
as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of
Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery
into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege
committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian
sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens
also without much trouble. ... It was a circumstance of great
value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who
was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the
son of Kimon. ... Although a Thracian prince, he had never
ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for
having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus,
for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably
qualified to be at their head in the interchange of
hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own
personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The
force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but
the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented
their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the
Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own.
These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew
swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in
breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was
of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two
wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian
sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good
service against the bronze armor and the spear of the
Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage,
and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to
withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was
heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their
misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of
their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the
shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the
Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and
took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the
city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to
anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves
once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."
L. von Ranke, Universal History, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
Herodotus, History, book 6.
V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 16 (volume 2).
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493,
and GREECE: B. C. 492-491, and 490.
ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
Condemnation and death of Miltiades.
The Æginetan war.
Naval power created by Themistocles.
"The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was
he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command
on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant
success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited
in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an
opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before
they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before
the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might
be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required
them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the
expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of
the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships
to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia.
From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they
refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and
successful was the resistance offered that, after a long
delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled
to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at
once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. ...
Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into
court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was
given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a
fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even
Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public
debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his
wound. ... His condemnation was one in a long series of
similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to
those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and
errors of judgment. ... We have very little information about
the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon.
So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain,
she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. ... Meanwhile, a man
was rising to power, who may be said to have created the
history of Athens for the rest of the century,--Themistocles,
the son of Neocles. ... On the very day of Marathon,
Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians
would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long
as they were masters of the Ægean? ... With an insight almost
incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a
maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough
to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly
fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only
secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to
Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to
abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a
mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the
fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the
hands of Xanthippus ... and Aristides. ... They were by no
means prepared for the change which Themistocles was
meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had
been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of
Spartan customs. ... He had been second in command at
Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From
him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute
opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the
support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles
had no support of the kind. He had to make his party ...
conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus
looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather
round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they
might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not
been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun,
soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked
attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.),
[Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned
above--B.C. 509-506].
{153}
It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the
heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of
the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity
soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and
defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally
caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. ... It was
clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite
inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the
leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now
"came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as
he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of
Aristides. ... It was clear that nothing decisive could be
done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles
were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be
carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose
them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the
safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and
accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had
got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master
of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his
plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he
was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the
treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines
from Laurium. ... By the summer of 480, the Athenians ... were
able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use
of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. ... At the same time Themistocles
set about the fortification of the Peiræus. ... Could he have
carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus
the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the
city might be in close connection. But for this the people
were not prepared."
E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: Plutarch, Aristides.--Themistocles.
ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.
Congress at Corinth.
Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
The second Persian invasion.
Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.
Abandonment of the City.
"The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of
Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good
fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several
insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon
put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who
succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the
Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention
during the first years of his reign. But he completely
conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves
about four or five years; and he then made preparations for
that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was
longing. The account of the three years' preparations of
Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a
bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the
isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by
storms--all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus.
History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can
no longer be separated. ... The Greeks awaited the attack
(Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves.
The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the
miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept
together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of
the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the
most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be
honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to
all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the
Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no
resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out
differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the
entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending
Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely
surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered
the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated.
The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance
after another. ... It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did
make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position
there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including
even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000
Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely
have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in
the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700
Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? ...
Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend
themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on
land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of
Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and
1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied,
but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. ... All
this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if
there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men;
but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest
to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been
as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to
an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they
were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as
afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open
field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while
marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an
undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the
contest, of which we may form a conception from the
description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three
days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the
Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so
generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and
they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical.
... After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open
before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a
distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened
her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens.
Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is
almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in
taking the temple. ... The miracles by which the temple is
said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner
during the attack of the Gauls.
{154}
But the temple of Delphi was certainly not
plundered.' ... The city of Athens had in the meantime been
abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge
in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the
Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' ...
The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. ...
During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was
fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but
glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a
third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks
at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they
withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.'
God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit
suffered shipwreck. ... While the Greek fleet was stationed in
the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards
Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The
Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified
the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted
to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they
forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn
against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. ...
But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the
Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own
city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and,
thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the
barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to
sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and
children on board their ships, and sail far away from the
Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where
Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle
as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and
that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the
enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved
to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time,
Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable
difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as
with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of
the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly
contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that
occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by
every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet
saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the
Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as
soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He
accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to
surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the
retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to
deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This
device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed
him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure
of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis
commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae,
or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The
battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of
Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who
ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common
cause with the Greeks. ... Their accession increased the
victory of the Greeks. ... Certain as the battle of Salamis
is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very
doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving
a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' ... Winter
was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged
Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and
partly in Boeotia. ... The probability is, that the Athenians
remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open
sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so
far as it had not already been devastated, if they would
conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained
any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause
of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for
when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not
faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the
Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it
scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the
Peloponnesians. ... Mardonius now again advanced towards
Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards
Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession
of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however
(Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the
Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually
advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was
fought. ... In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is
historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks,
and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without
being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it
then disappears. It is also historically certain, that
Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks.
... After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes.
In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war,
Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their
opinions were divided. ... On the same day on which the battle
of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a
victory at sea. ... After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian
cities revolted against the Persians."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 1, lectures. 37 and 38.
ALSO IN:
Herodotus, History; translated and edited by H. Rawlinson,
book 7 (volume 4).
Plutarch, Themistocles.
G. W. Cox, The Greeks and Persians.
ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
Protection of Ionia assumed.
Siege and capture of Sestus.
Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.
Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.
"The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with
Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally
unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own
victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole
country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too
great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the
Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. ... It would be
better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in
settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had
favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians,
and Thessalians. ... The Athenians, on the other hand,
espoused the cause of the cities. ... Ionia ought to be a
bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes.
{155}
... The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent
among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced
settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos,
Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into
the confederation ... and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek
empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of
caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage
from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the
bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or
had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed,
the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. ...
The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved
... not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the
strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in
the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked
without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They
allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under
the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians
and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The
Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long
siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the
main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in
the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one
naval power, and having after such successes attained to a
confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer
seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they
regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of
Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens
itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few
scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as
their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and
ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned
from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its
crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured
to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials
of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration
of the city was commenced with all possible activity. ... But
even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied
their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its
security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town,
public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It
was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the
city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond
the circle of the ancient walls, ... so as to be able, in case
of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the
country-population within the capital itself. ... But the
Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls
undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations
became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their
neighbours broke out afresh. ... The Peloponnesian states,
above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention
of Sparta to the situation of affairs. ... As at Sparta city
walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts
prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town
was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it
was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of
the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference
undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event
of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could
be successfully defended; that central Greece would
necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every
fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At
such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans
made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered
the immediate cessation of building operations, and with
assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta,
in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his
arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by,
pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the
meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls,
and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of
Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The
enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and
were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They
now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good
advice."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN G. W. Cox, History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2).
ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.
Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.
The founding of Athenian Empire.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
Constitutional gains for the democracy.
Ascendency of Aristeides.
Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.
The sustentation of the commons.
The stripping of power from the Areopagus.
At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the
Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on
the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other
posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may
thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic
peninsula ... were not less anxious to seek protection in the
bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes
and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic
Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and
Byzantium. ... Some sort of union, organised and obligatory
upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all.
Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy
of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the
Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the
Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also
from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian
states--traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among
these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most
formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose
treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium
(See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten
years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a
temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable
projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater
than himself--the Athenian Themistokles. ... The charge
[against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects
itself with the previous movement of political parties. ...
The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly
appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both
the peremptory necessity of cooperation against a common enemy.
{156}
And apparently it was not resumed during the times which
immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their
country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in
prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver
of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is
commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy
of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character
of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian
old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the
originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had
now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact.
... From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the
grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which
character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. ...
The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively,
were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the
men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from
a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory,
which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers,
as combatants, and as patriots. ... The political change
arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the
military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of
Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as
head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the
political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or
privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass,
strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting
against all recognised political inequalities. ... Early after
the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was
enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According
to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian
census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were
not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed
votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a
magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher
classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility
extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength
of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find
that it was proposed by Aristeides. ... The popularity thus
ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his
previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from
his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought
into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new
Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of
Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled
political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of
his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his
duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New
political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising
with Aristeides. ... Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon],
(son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles
was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to
Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the
treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of
the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days.
"Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism
of Themistokles."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 44 (volume 5).
The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the
political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are
represented somewhat differently from the account above, in
the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which
is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one
of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the
council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and
ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on
them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the
victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the
country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised
funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced
them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service
the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and
public affairs were admirably administered during the
following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their
name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed
themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of
Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were
Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of
Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former
reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his
contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ
the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The
rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though
they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians
from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were
due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity
afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct
of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after
the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478
B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. ...
Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and
wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer
the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country
occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation,
he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or
sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as
public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of
their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the
rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the
position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians,
whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to
retain their own constitutions and to rule their own
dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by
the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the
public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave
maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or
jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500
soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home
magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed
soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the
Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000
sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships,
and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the
gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense
of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was
thus secured.
{157}
The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the
period during which the country continued under the ascendency
of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were
gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more
preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed
incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of
the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put
to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences
committed in their administration. Afterwards in the
archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council
itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which
were the keystone of the existing constitution, and
distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and
the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of
Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to
be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. ...
Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before
the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally
they stripped it of all its principal functions. The
assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of
Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the
circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this
the degradation of the constitution proceeded without
intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular
favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer
of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of
Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political
life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war.
Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as
the generals had no military experience and owed their
appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each
expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives,
chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to
the wealthy classes or to the commons."--Aristotle, On the
Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter
23-26.--On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much
of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once
dismissed as unhistorical. ... If the evidence of Thucydides
is to count for anything, it is quite certain that
Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C.
... Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the
remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is
supported by all our authorities--if indeed it is not merely
repeated by them."
E. Abbott, History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 11, section 5.
ALSO IN
J. P. Mahaffy, Problems in Greek History page 96.
Plutarch, Themistocles.
See, also, below: B. C. 466-454.
ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
Continued war against the Persians.
Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.
Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.
"Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians
was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast
of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470].
The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally
Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold
and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of
wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their
bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into
the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus
was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in
Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an
Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic
Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled
the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought
and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who
had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them
in his own trireme to Athens,--an act which gained him great
favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates
were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and
expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the
first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the
Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not
now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon
appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before
Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were
at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the
hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to
Athens--an example which they soon followed in other cases.
... After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the
coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had
assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a
fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to
the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of
Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch.
Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and
attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying
at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of
350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician
vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in
the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to
attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did
not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships
fell into the hands of the victors, and several were
destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his
men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of
the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they
turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors;
and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two
important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80
Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he
immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of
them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the
termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The
year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated,
and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."
T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 13.
ALSO IN
W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 27 (volume 1).
See also PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
{158}
ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.
Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.
Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.
Fall and exile of Cimon.
Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.
Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.
Building the Long Walls.
"It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens
that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a
mistress rather than a leader. ... Two years after the
reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out
into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of
Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the
mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this
coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the
Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But
the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to
develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. ... A
spot called 'The Nine Ways,' ... where that great river first
begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be
spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to
secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian
tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders
with such desperation that ... the Athenian armies were
defeated. ... It was probably the discouragement which this
defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her
secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save
her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt
to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own
resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians
of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the
ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well
disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that
moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful
Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the
Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE
THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own
resources; and these were so considerable that she held out
against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole
years. ... She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B.
C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like
Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her
war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine
of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of
her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian
hands. ... The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate
struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos
came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his
reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the
city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the
Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from
destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of
the Persian war. ... His pleading was bitterly opposed by the
anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen,
Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as
antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy
prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta
[B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so
unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed
its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore,
began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at
last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating
that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN
WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified
the anti-Spartan party at Athens. ... Cimon was now no longer
able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the
conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose
foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his
views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances
abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward
Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the
constitution. They were determined to carry out to its
furthest logical development the democratic tendency which
Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of
Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is
known. But Pericles ... was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser
of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and
Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of
the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and
haughty--a strange chief for the popular party. But his
relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed
between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the
cause of democracy. ... While Cimon had Greece in his mind,
Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the
times was favourable to the narrower policy. ... The first aim
which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the
cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C.
477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the
stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. ...
Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He
chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a
rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in
Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a
law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial
power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. ...
When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. ...
Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against
Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But
this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not
long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous
friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. ...
The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in
sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The
foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in
troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and
Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby
made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable.
He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most
powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close
alliance with Megara. ... In Boeotia, too, he stirred up
enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in
that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458
B. C. the storm burst. ... At the moment of the outbreak of
the first important naval war which she had to wage with a
Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two
important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk
of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from
Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461
and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. ...
{159}
It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the
treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic
needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other
confederates. ... The second important event of the year 458
B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of
Athens [See LONG WALLS]. ... When they were finished Athens,
Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified
triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse
of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for
the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and
herds."
C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapters 23-24.
ALSO IN
E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
chapters 5-6.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 17 (volume 3).
Plutarch, Cimon; Pericles.
ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.
Recall of Cimon.
His last enterprise against the Persians.
The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.
Five years truce with Sparta.
"Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western
border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the
Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged
throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent
his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this
rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at
the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance.
The Athenian commanders, whether following their own
discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted
Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to
defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of
Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body
of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their
cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called
White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the
Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. ...
Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a
sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans
to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an
expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading
Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have
been unable to render him the service for which it was
offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not
yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored
internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion.
Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and
have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the
completion of the long walls. ... But among his opponents
there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work
in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means
of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the
hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading
army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work
and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the
Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the
Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at
Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans
were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at
home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust
Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round
Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at
Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the
Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to
oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important
advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of
Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now
fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable
juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close.
The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms.
... The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with
their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if
they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless
wanderers in Naupactus. ... But these successes were
counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens
this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of
Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance
from Sparta, ... raised a great army, which he placed under
the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus.
Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced
the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an
island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town
called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length
he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. ... The
Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the
Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the
enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over
the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned
their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all
destroyed. ... Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of
the Persians and put to death. ... Egypt ... was again reduced
under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where
another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of
king ... maintained himself for several years against the
power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the
Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet
and army which had been first employed in the war. They had
sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their
countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent
disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the
Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the
Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped
to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this
calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent
on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early
in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a
ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the
superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their
operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon
Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having
accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the
public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards
embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side
of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of
Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing.
{160}
He then ... laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. ... This
attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result
of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole
advantageous or encouraging. ... It seems to have been not
long after the events which have been just related that Cimon
was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose
was moved by Pericles himself;--a fact which seems to intimate
that some change had taken place in the relations or the
temper of parties at Athens. ... The three years next
following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454
or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without
affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was
followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course
of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near
the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had
solicited succour from the Athenians. ... Cimon was appointed
to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed
to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of
Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium.
Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a
wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of
provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still
animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with
his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and
Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having
completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with
another which they gained on shore, either over the troops
which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force
by which they were supported. After this they were joined by
the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned,
it would appear, without having achieved any material object,
and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's
military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace
[sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace
of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian
king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy.
Within less than a century after his death it was, if not
commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty,
negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus,
the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military
occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days
journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or,
according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the
Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus
and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the
town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of
Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to
render the whole account extremely suspicious."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 17 (volume 3).
Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;
Professor Curtius rejects it.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 45 (volume 5).
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.
War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.
Victories of Myronides.
Siege and conquest of Ægina.
Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.
Defeat at Tanagra.
Overthrow of the Thebans.
Recovered Ascendency.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.
Hostile revolution in Bœotia.
Defeat at Coroneia.
Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
The thirty years' truce.
Territorial losses.
Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he
attained it.
The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire
under his rule.
"The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their
confederacy and their internal politics. ... After the death
of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by
Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a
kinsman of Cimon. ... Hitherto the members had sat here or
there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined
into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a
consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold
its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before
him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of
the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies--no
fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the
'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.
The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been
established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were
paid--a second source of income to the poor. Such measures
were beyond anything that the private liberality of
Cimon--splendid as it was--could achieve; and on Cimon's death
no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his
purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the
war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public
purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating
in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded
the surplus as the money of the allies. ... Pericles took
another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as
the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,
and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at
the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a
part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of
Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new
temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena--the
celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].
... Other public buildings were also begun about this time.
Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was
found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. ...
For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with
crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply
of practical seamen. ... Thus by direct or indirect means
Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of
citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these
paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public
festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new
splendour. ... That all might attend the theatre in which the
plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should
receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge
demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We
may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. ... Or
we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for
art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.
{161}
Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are
far from including the whole truth. Pericles ... was, if we
please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was
something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with
impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he
cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He
sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city
the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and
the opportunity of a happy and useful life. ... The oligarchs
determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. ...
They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should
be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual
arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in
the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,
but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the
feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.
Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen
years Pericles was master of the city. ... While Athens was
active, organizing her confederacy and securing her
communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed
the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they
awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens
had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the
confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,
of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And
meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first
city in Greece."
E. Abbott, Pericles, chapters 10-11.
"A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens
had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head
of the Ionian League--the mistress of the Grecian seas; with
Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and
arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was
Humbled--Ægina ruined--Megara had shrunk into her dependency
and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very
constitution from the hands of an Athenian general--the
democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself
subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had
remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich
pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of
Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in
Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms
and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the
opposite coast--the most powerful islands of the Grecian
seas--contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally
subjected to her revenge. ... In all Greece, Myronides was
perhaps the ablest general--Pericles ... was undoubtedly the
most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. ...
In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens
acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and
while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of
her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of
appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. ...
It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the
seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies
were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important
cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus
Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. ...
Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of
Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours
in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of
the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a
focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her
dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal
traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the
Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the
same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a
third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with
Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and
preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even
should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."
E. G. Bulwer-Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, book 4,
chapter 5, book 5, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles,
Plutarch, Pericles.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Art.
"The Greeks ... were industrious, commercial, sensitive to
physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and
controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in
the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators
and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to
meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile
aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works
of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice
discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a
nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in
prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the
next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of
rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all
systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the
foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors,
yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and
passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence,
giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while
preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what
we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480
B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and
the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great
was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that,
only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."
E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture, page 65.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Domestic life.
The Athenian house.
"For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering
Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the
epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,
Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose
circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).
But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded
together and the population always in activity. There wagons
were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the
ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places
in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy
scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually
entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and
slaves were carrying messages or burdens.
{162}
Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,
going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of
corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large
numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,
fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.
Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they
generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of
considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and
parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make
his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news
of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were
current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing
among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,
or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,
garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that
second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.
Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,
and of certain transactions of more or less creditable
character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism
to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to
his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of
influence in the public assemblies--thanks to his liberality;
while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons
and to enrich the temples."
[Image]
Plan Of Athenian House.
"We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the
residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on
the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow
streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is
surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B
the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a.
From this first court: in the centre of which is a small
fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the
passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is
likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room,
at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private
altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and
wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the
cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The
large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the
gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a
common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and
closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the
passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small
garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the
servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction
Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to
the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is
sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from
this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace
L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above
the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the
Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus.
From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about
twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to
protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds.
From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending
towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by
olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. ... In
the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were
arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect
only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the
house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In
this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give
an account of the commissions they have executed, or to
receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them,
he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at
R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the
gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he
entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which
are shut off, not being in communication with the first court
except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation
which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to
domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are
admitted into the second court; for example, if they are
invited to a banquet,--which is held in the great hall K. The
master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two
members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller
room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas
fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great
hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one
of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican
marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and
cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate
painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth
plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of
timber artistically wrought and coloured."
E. Viollet-le-Duc, The Habitations of Man in all Ages,
chapter 17.
{163}
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.
Contrast with the Romans.
"It is remarkable ... that the 'equality' of laws on which the
Greek democracies prided themselves--that equality which, in
the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and
Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens--had little in
common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal
administration of civil laws among the citizens, however
limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the
applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class
which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first
excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some
purposes slaves. ... There are two special dangers to which
law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be
liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too
rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more
progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves
with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and
needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any
superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was
not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so,
though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may
have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of
national character is the capacity for applying and working
out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of
abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or
the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The
Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was
quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of
a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular
courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate
knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest
tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators
and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his
Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were
constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly
influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of
jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which
never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they
stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts
of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of
judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of
the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at
the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to
which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could
be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked
with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew
up. ... The other liability to which the infancy of society is
exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the
greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law,
arising chiefly from its earlier association and
identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the
human race to those views of life and conduct which they
entertained at the time when their usages were first
consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two
races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and
grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern
societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of
the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as
consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have
been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has
in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has
uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the
conclusions it could build on ancient texts without
discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no
reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the
laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had
given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."
H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, ch, 3-4.
"But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one
time the great political safeguard against state oppression
and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become
so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just
as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the
abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any
other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been
administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large
bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our
jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it
a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of
the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits
of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question,
though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge
to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that
too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most
of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than
all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and
witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past
decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the
same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were
state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly
were kept. ... There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias
against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to
transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them
in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so
falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence
there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a
thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of
Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a
certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state
documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited
in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in
the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at
seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in
and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his
brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find
the most libellous charges brought against opponents on
matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal
evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some
speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of
mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the
former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to
tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived,
how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or
else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one
another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small
majority you came to an absurd decision.'
{164}
'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates,
'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for
decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire
after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to
wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to
their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you
ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to
hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it
is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and
most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act
contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place
here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is
at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for
conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get
an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed
once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and
defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as
to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will
not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a
single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which
citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who
do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same
thing.'"
J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, chapter 13.
ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
The Age of Pericles: Political life.
The democracy.
"The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and
yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the
toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to
be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The
Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that
self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every
possession of the common heritage into some new and more
brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all
that formed its real life and its real glory, from the
Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned
this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or
Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the
contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant
cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and
see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of
thousands--here at least of a truth is something which Athens
did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian
priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the
common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth
of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that
Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own
blood--as we think that the institutions which grew up under
their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are
living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of
one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal
right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution
taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to
take when it was able to run its natural course in a
common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever
the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an
Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in
its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things,
delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals;
but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will
be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign
body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to
say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or
chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose
its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have
only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with
another of the original elements, the Council. This body too
loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking
power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or
appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy
discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more
advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be
exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against
every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power
of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly,
Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as
chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to
decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is
pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of
a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a
single city. It is a form of government which works up the
faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the
form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn
genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its
weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch
so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life
needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely
to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her
glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown
of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human
beings to a higher level than any government before or since;
it gave freer play than any government before or since to the
personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few
years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian
decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must
set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of
other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our
knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one
picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an
Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution
because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded
classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that
there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the
Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of
official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell
to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês
reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but
because he was Periklês. ... In the Ekklêsia which listened to
Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in
an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we
ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials
for calling up the political life of Athens in all its
fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds
of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear
away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the
parent state of justice and freedom.
{165}
Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is
shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the
first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion
could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught
that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free
vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the
banishment or massacre of the weaker side. ... It must be
constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an
aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were
understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the
Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also
political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong
to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either
case, the highest authority of the State is the general
Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be
the whole people or only a part of it. ... The slaves and
strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek
ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the
sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not
his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the
aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in
placing the final authority of the State in the general
Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. ... The
people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same
class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it
against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men
widely differing in character, widely differing in their
relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of
ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way,
almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the
State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of
fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less
than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its
legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of
the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the
inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into
being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of
reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction
of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth
also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it
affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which
still remained the special heritage of certain sacred
families. ... In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room
for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened
to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful
conservative administrators, men able to work the system which
they find established, no form of government is so fertile.
... But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency
of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom
and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."
E. A. Freeman, Comparative Politics, lecture 5-6.
"Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his
smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public
business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of
the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for
the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence
both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on
foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of
Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the
sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the
ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so
great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own
boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his
thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign
Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he
himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or
Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be
levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task
of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty,
and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner,
to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of
Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor,
his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened
to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the
arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias
to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as
extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own
'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own
policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the
bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a
second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that
the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. ... We suspect that the
average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above
the average English Member of Parliament. It was this
concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every
citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing
characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing
like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world:
the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day
have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and
have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The
great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons
which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and
for every land and people."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian
Democracy.
"The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which
is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common
usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The
word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous
meaning. It denoted on the one hand political
independence,--the exercise of sovereign power by the State
and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every
Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the
Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like
them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet
or not. But the word also denoted personal and social
liberty,--freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the
absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance
between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in
this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the
absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life
was but little known except at Athens."
S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
pages 70-71.
{166}
"To Athens ... we look ... for an answer to the question, What
does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely
democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under
favourable circumstances, there is no form of government
which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a
vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a
pure democracy. ... But it does not follow that, though in
this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of
government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms
of government. ... Neither, on the other hand, does it follow
from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian
democracy--not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the
Macedonians--that all democracies are short-lived, and must
pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for
the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it
is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian
Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as
it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according
to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his
day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an
effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might
have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on
that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force
and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught
by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under
the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that
democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be,
not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong
neighbour--for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more
blushless way than democratic Greece--but that any loose
aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst
themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether
democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of
government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground
against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong
monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples
at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much
freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity.
They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon
used the German States at the commencement of the present
century."
J. S. Blackie, What does History Teach? pages 28-31.
"In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion.
... The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy,
which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when
the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as
speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No
Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine
Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus
attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek
discussions, and suggested by the experience, already
considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The
age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a
wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple
narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the
results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his
light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit,
and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often
reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads
like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian
Assembly."
W. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, pages 170-171.
ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
New settlements of Klerouchoi.
The founding of Amphipolis.--
Revolt and subjugation of Samos.
"The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of
Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The
establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who
retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so
well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously
good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in
the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of
settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old
wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which
now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had
passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the
attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The
task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city
came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to
the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas
and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. ... Two years before the
founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. ... In
this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs
who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated
the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the
Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the
Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the
island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the
oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,
as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian
Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather
than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with
Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and
seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos
succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed
over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready
for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion
had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room
to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was
dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of
whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these
ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to
watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off
the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.
With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the
Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its
return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians
gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But
no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the
Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,
broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days
remained masters of the sea.
{167}
The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after
the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships
from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with
thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian
oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by
their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the
revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,
give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of
the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made
their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. ...
The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger
nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied
for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot
war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the
question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years
to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition
from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.
... The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be
no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed
the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took
credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had
they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of
revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the
condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,
she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had
been spent in desperate warfare."
G. W. Cox, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).
ATHENS: B. C. 431.
Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Its Causes.
"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra.
A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States
complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on.
The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were
jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE:
B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek
States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in
a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in
the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other.
Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles
everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the
common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle
between these classes all over Greece, and often within the
same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one
another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for
Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was
all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the
oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis,
Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong
by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on
we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy,
acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost
all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast
towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of
Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes,
the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far
stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land
army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system
of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."
C. A. Fyffe, History of Greece (History Primers), page 84.
The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in
reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which
made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who
says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to
the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to
contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems
to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the
Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and
that the allies themselves should have only so much as to
enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may
not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of
Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect,
that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for
the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider
only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens
are attendant on this practice; in the first place they
receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in
the next place, they manage the government of the allied
states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships;
they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those
of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each
state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the
Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to
the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the
Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of
justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty
of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a
greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house
makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or
slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the
visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did
not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the
Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and
captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual
of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens,
knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause
according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the
people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to
use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the
people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the
allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the
Athenian people."
Xenophon, On the Athenian Government (Minor Works,
translated by Reverend J. S. Watson), page 235.
The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the
outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.--The
prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of
the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their
connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C.
431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary
to take account of the consequences of the war as they
affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had
occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively
provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.
{168}
ATHENS: B. C. 431.
Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
Siege of Athens.
"While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and
were still on their way, but before they entered Attica,
Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten
Athenian generals, ... repeated [to the Athenians] his
previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their
property from the country into the city; they must defend
their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip
for service the fleet in which lay their strength. ... The
citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their
children and wives, their household goods, and even the
wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks
and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent
islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the
Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country.
Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any
other Hellenic people, from very early times. ... When they
came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find
homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their
abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and
shrines of heroes. ... Many also established themselves in the
turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could
find; for the city could not contain them when they first came
in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and
the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the
Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning
their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against
the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the
Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at
Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time
in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on,
and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans
into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was
in full ear, invaded Attica: ... They encamped and ravaged,
first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. ... At Acharnae
they encamped, and remained there a considerable time,
ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus
that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him
in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do;
but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The
people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his
previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to
battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The
Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions
lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia.
... On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to
their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets
were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B.
C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their
families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main
cause of the war. ... The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan
exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country
to cultivate. ... About the end of the summer the entire
Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of
Megara. ... After ravaging the greater part of the country
they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with
cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year
during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."
Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett,
book 2; section 13-31 (volume 1).
ATHENS: B. C. 430.
The funeral oration of Pericles.
During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance
with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first
fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public
charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the
celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead
are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering
which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are
placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on
hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a
single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies
are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The
procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether
citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased
are present at the place of interment and make lamentation.
The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot
outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in
war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in
recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the
field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man
of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city,
delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people
depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was
repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who
were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the
fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty
stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard
as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as
follows:
'Most of those who have spoken here before me have
commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other
funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such
an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who
have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have
preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they
should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as
this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the
reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the
eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues
believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is
difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even
moderation is apt not to give the impression of
truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is
likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of
his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well
informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own
powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration.
Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as
each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well
himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is
aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our
ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice,
I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour
to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I
will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and
becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a
tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never
been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by
their valour they have handed down from generation to
generation, and we have received from them a free state.
{169}
But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our
fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a
struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire.
And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most
of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of
improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all
things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace
and war. Of the military exploits by which our various
possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we
or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or
Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and
is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should
like to point out by what principles of action we rose to
power, and under what institutions and through what manner
of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such
thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this
numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably
listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into
rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our
neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we
are called a democracy, for the administration is in the
hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law
secures equal justice to all alike in their private
disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and
when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred
to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as
the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man
may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his
condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life,
and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one
another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he
likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though
harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained
in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades
our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by
respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial
regard to those which are ordained for the protection of
the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring
upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the
general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for
our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have
regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home
the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we
daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy.
Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the
whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of
other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our
military training is in many respects superior to that of
our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and
we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or
learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an
enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or
trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the
matter of education, whereas they from early youth are
always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make
them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to
face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves,
but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone
into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are
fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have
seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have
never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy
divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send
our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and
defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had
routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been
vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with
a light heart but without laborious training, and with a
courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law,
are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate
the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave
as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too
our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we
are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and
we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we
employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a
real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace;
the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An
Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he
takes care of his own household; and even those of us who
are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics.
We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public
affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and
if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a
policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion,
not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is
gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a
peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too,
whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but
hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be
esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense
both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that
account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are
unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by
receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the
firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive
the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in
his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's
generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying
a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a
calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom
and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that
Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual
Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of
adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with
the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and
idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is
verified by the position to which these qualities have
raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone
among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her.
No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses
which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject
complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we
shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty
monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of
this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises
of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please
for the moment, although his representation of the facts
will not bear the light of day.
{170}
For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a
path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal
memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the
city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they
could not bear the thought that she might be taken from
them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on
her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens
because I want to show you that we are contending for a
higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges,
and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men
whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been
already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified
them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious.
And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that
their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found
equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs
has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be
the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate
their final seal. For even those who come short in other
ways may justly plead the valour with which they have
fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil
with the good, and have benefited the state more by their
public services than they have injured her by their private
actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or
hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put
off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a
man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming
that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any
of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler
cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be
honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to
hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of
death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when
the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer,
rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from
the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet
stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their
fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their
fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men;
they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire
to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a
less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be
expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever
about the advantages of a brave defence which you know
already. But instead of listening to him I would have you
day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens,
until you become filled with the love of her; and when you
are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that
this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty
and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict
had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who,
if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their
virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their
lives to her as the fairest offering which they could
present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively
made was individually repaid to them; for they received
again each one for himself a praise which grows not old,
and the noblest of all sepulchres--I speak not of that in
which their remains are laid, but of that in which their
glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every
fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth
is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they
commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own
country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an
unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the
hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming
courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not
weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has
no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw
away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is
always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any
accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man
of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far
more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time
when he is full of courage and animated by the general
hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the
dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know
that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes;
and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most
honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an
honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so
ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the
term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel
this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind
you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And
sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a
man never knew, but which were a part of his life before
they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at
which they may hope to have other children, and they ought
to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who
may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones,
but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left
desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot
have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children
to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have
passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you
have been happy during the greater part of those days;
remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and
be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the
love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some
say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and
useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the
departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be
an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however
pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought,
I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The
living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is
out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives
is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to
those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them
up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more
weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and
not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I
have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law,
making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of
deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been
honourably interred, and it remains only that their
children should be maintained at the public charge until
they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as
with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead,
after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of
virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are
enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you
have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'
Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter,
with the end of which ended the first year of the
Peloponnesian War."
Thucydides, History, translated by B. Jowett,
volume 1, book 2, section 34-47.
{171}
ATHENS: B. C. 130-429.
The Plague in the city.
Death of Pericles.
Capture of Potidæa.
"As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians
... invaded Attica, where they established themselves and
ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when
the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. ... The
disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia;
thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading
over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell
upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus,
and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the
cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It
afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality
became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes
which might or could have produced such a disturbance of
nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his
own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the
symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may
recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was
myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The
season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary
sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease,
it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all
in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with
violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of
the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly
suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid.
There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the
disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest;
then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring
on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given
names; and they were very distressing. ... The body externally
was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid
colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and
ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. ... The disorder
which had originally settled in the head passed gradually
through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst,
would often seize the extremities and leave its mark,
attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some
escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their
eyes. ... The crowding of the people out of the country into
the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered
most. ... The mortality among them was dreadful and they
perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they had died, one
upon another, while others hardly alive wallowed in the
streets and crawled about every fountain craving for water.
The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of
those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was
such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all
law, human and divine. ... The pleasure of the moment and any
sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of
honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man
deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they
learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after
ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own
coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And
now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy,
though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians
turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and
imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with
peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles
spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged
their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general
and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he
was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for
some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B.
C. By his death the republic was given over to striving
demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain
and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on,
acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was
especially embittered in the course of the second summer by
the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who
were captured while on their way to solicit help from the
Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus,
who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still
holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately,
although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague.
But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to
starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to
depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled
anew, with colonists.
Thucydides, History,
translated by Jowett, book 2, section 8-70.
ALSO IN:
E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
chapter 13-15.
W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 64 (volume 2).
L. Whibley, Political Parties in Athens during the
Peloponnesian War.
W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks,
sections 62-64 (volume 2).
ATHENS: B. C. 429-421.
After Pericles.
The rise of the Demagogues.
"When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to
frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would
have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have
been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities.
When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and
conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no
politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and
foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other,
as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot
wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke
bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries
which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good
laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great
achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes
which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without
reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country
involved in a ruinous war.".
E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
pages 362-363.
{172}
"The moral change which had ... befallen the Attic community
had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles,
manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory
signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of
his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people
had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating
themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded
in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the
voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly
citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in
existence--no aristocracy, no official class, no board of
experienced statesmen--nothing, in fact, to which the citizens
might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had
recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the
interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had
spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now
put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But
as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude
after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the
people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence.
Pericles stood above the multitude. ... His successors were
obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence,
they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak
points in the character of the citizens, and achieved
popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring
to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. ... Now for the
first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens
thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,--men of
the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which
had so vigorously increased at Athens. ... The office of
general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest
men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to
their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious
multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their
activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes.
... On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking.
Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain
Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the
comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the
district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and
mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead
in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who
had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. ... It was not until
after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had
first made themselves a name by their opposition against
Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to
maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it
is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that
the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly
manifests itself."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 3, chapter 2.
"The characters of the military commander and the political
leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this
division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was
no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to
warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and
successful general; but in him the military character was
quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a
wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the
state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After
Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of
Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in
Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character.
Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier.
But the old notion of combining military and political
position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who
proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were
needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was
tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced
into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of
Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was
turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he
measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal
battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that
the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct
persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the
two characters; but he left no successor. ... A Demagogue then
was simply an influential speaker of popular politics.
Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while
Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one
was the same as the position of the other. The only question
is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by
Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, 2d ser.,
pages 138-140.
ATHENS: B. C. 429-427.
Fate of Platæa.
Phormio's Victories.
Revolt of Lesbos.
Siege of Mitylene.
Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
ATHENS: B. C. 425.
Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general.
Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria.
Peace pleaded for and refused.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.
Socrates as soldier and citizen.
The trial of the Generals.
"Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His
father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a
midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and
intellectual development. There is no specific record of him
at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429
B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say
is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid
period of Athenian or Greek history. ... As a boy he received the
usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an
education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of
quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to
have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is
represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the
choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit
of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men
of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of
the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know
thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root
of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of
mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He
understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry;
and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the
theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or
Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and,
especially, with those of Anaxagoras.
{173}
But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go
beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. ... All then
that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life
consists of general statements like these. During these years
there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429
B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa,
an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed
everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold,
and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this
siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with
Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he
eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the
Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians
were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the
battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who
did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and
the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and
foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says
Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have
been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the
battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian
forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and
Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific
services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates
was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at
Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to
hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds
[13. C. 423]. ... The Clouds is his protest against the
immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates
for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of
Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The
grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and
Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day
in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian.
Aristophanes cared little--probably he did not take the
trouble to find out--that Socrates' whole life was spent in
fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that
Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a
good centre-piece for a comedy. ... The Clouds, it is needless
to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but
Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he
made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life.
They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice,
against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten
chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long
'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an
evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath
the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the
better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' ...
For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear
nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which
there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in
the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he
meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. ... In
406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the
battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the
south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian
commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to
save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians
at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance
of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and
many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been
left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and
an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of
duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered
certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser
Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on
which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was
adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide
in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate
resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation
and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the
acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders
collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was
illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal
trial. ... Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate,
the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed
of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of
the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members
of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for
the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and
ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven
days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the
proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it
were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed:
one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly
each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates:
it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he
was the speaker. ... On the day on which it was proposed to
take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the
eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as
we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the
accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri
opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the
ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats
and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not
put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote.
Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry
people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him.
... But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings
were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the
generals were condemned and executed."
F. J. Church, Introduction to Trial and Death of Socrates,
pages 9-23.
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 406.
{174}
ATHENS: B. C. 421.
End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.
The Peace of Nicias.
"The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just
ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B.
C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast
quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side,
but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was
unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the
successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was
still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of
Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and
the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified.
Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken
the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having
escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever
known."
C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, page 341.
"The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias ...
put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of
states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years,
viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol.
lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3
(towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this
reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the
Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a
triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had
attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to
fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered
upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the
dominion of Athens in its whole extent,--notwithstanding all
the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the
calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves:
the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to
Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the
fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain.
Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the
peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the
discontent among her confederates, particularly among the
secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and
obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion
of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth
to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore
the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had
begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so
dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall
back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates.
Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same
year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms
of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual
assistance against any hostile attack."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
ATHENS: B. C. 421-418.
New combinations.
Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy.
Rising influence of Alcibiades.
War in Argos and Arcadia.
Battle of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
ATHENS: B. C. 416.
Siege and conquest of Melos.
Massacre of the inhabitants.
See GREECE: B. C. 416.
ATHENS: B. C. 415.
The expedition against Syracuse.
Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).
A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of
Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse.
Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage,
appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous.
Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon
Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite
the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and
where he hoped to be in command. ... All men's minds were
filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were
to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and
public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking
about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors,
its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be
easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their
sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not
approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that
the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the
service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage;
even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with
Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the
enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new
subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a
state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a
disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He
ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to
gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the
greatest danger. ... One of the demagogues, however, replied
that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he
proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the
generals full power to use all the resources of the city in
preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was
completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was
impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of
Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at
hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a
source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not
long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the
expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. ... An
event which took place shortly before the departure of the
fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the
hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated.
... 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were
blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The
upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower
part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base,
without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of
the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers
throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous
situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses
as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at
the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. ... The
religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be
planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the
companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became
associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at
Athens,--political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' ... To
all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes
unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient
expiation.
{175}
While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent
enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible
man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he
had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of
Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism.
The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a
favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos,
and we have good reason to believe in a political machination,
seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the
impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds.
An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves,
without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to
mind that before this time some of these statues had been
broken by young men after a night of carousal and
intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in
set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the
Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the
superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political
anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred
statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the
government even less than they had respected the gods, and it
was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed
without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this
men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was
he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe
him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the
other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although
proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon
whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had
been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to
prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had
intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but
the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a
compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done
in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades
found himself threatened on all sides. ... Urging as a pretext
the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they
obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and
that the question of his guilt or innocence should be
postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of
summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city,
citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak.
... At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and
dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes
were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and
confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."
V. Duruy, History of the Greek People,
chapter 25, section 2 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Thucydides, History, book 6, section 27-28.
G. W. Cox, The Athenian Empire, chapter 5.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 58 (volume 7).
ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
Fatal end of the expedition against Syracuse.
"Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a
charge of impiety. ... He did not go back to Athens for his
trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from
him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in
Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias
could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to
make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might
say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He
now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under
cover of settling matters at Segesta. ... The Syracusans by
this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up
to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they
had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists.
... The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides
in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also
sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the
people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked.
... But the most important embassy of all was that which the
Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took
up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta.
And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the
banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he
could against Athens. ... He told the Spartans to occupy a
fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a
great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous
help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan
commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in
those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the
Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of
Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick
and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. ... And now at
last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do
something. ... The Athenians ... occupied all that part of the
hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined
by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year,
the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the
Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry
it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be
hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a
cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall
from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more
than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill,
and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower
ground by the Great Harbour. ... The Syracusans were defeated,
as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they
lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed
away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian
fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on
the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained
in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and
for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by
success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he
neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that
Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the
Syracusans sank. ... It was at this darkest moment of all that
deliverance came. ... A Corinthian ship, under its captain
Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news
that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the
help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was
actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same
end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk
of surrender. ... And one day the Athenian camp was startled
by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a
truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily
with bag and baggage.
{176}
Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that
the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it
was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the
Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance
was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos
and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had
come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as
a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he
offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then
entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his
scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western
end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall
running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from
ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on
building, and some small actions took place. ... Another
winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending
of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops.
... Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people.
... This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance
had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they
were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To
send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear
nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether
anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and
whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the
assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be
sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and
Eurymedon. ... Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by
help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object
now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new
force came. ... It had been just when the Syracusans were most
downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the
Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits
were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of
Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first,
seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of
light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with
all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica;
they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought
Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to
Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as
Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done
but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the
fleet home again. ... The attack was at first successful, and
the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the
Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the
assailants back. Utter confusion followed. ... The last chance
was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias
would stay on. ... When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh
help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from
Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just
at that moment the moon was eclipsed. ... Nikias consulted his
soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine
days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was
the destruction of the besieging army. ... It was felt on both
sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the
Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the
Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now
blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across
it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that
the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the
shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the
chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like
a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. ... The last fight
now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and
their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small
a space. ... The fight was long and confused; at last the
Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the
invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun
to take vengeance on her enemies. ... The Athenians waited one
day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe
place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The
sick had to be left behind. ... On the sixth day, after
frightful toil, they determined to change their course. ...
They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first.
Much better order was kept in the front division and by the
time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles
behind. ... In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the
frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were
prisoners. ... The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the
night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and
driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the
river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There
was the end. ... The Athenians were so maddened by thirst
that, though men were falling under darts and the water was
getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but
drinking. ... No further terms were made; most of the horsemen
contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners.
Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private
slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led
prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the
stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man
daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died;
many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were
after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The
generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished
to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts
against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to
Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so
it was done. ... So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the
greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that
which came to the most utter failure."
E. A. Freeman, The Story of Sicily, pages 117-137.
ALSO IN:
Thucydides, History;
translated by B. Jowett, books 6-7 (volume 1).
See, also, SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
{177}
ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition.
Spartan alliance with the Persians.
Plotting of Alcibiades.
The Decelian War.
"At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the
most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition
produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than
that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own
days, after the battle of Jena. ... 'At least 40,000 citizens,
allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may
easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom
belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of
the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the
plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property
may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The
consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to
be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and
whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of
this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which
Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the
same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands
of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt.
The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself,
and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was
impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong
escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan
was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no
safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the
Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their
city; and this state of things had already been going on for
the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the
Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after
the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among
them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more
might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that,
although there was no such man, and although the leading men
were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful
arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case.
... The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was,
that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among
the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the
Spartans the very element which before they had been
altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he
urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a
fleet to Ionia. ... Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after
another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded
treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of
Persia--Darius was then king--and in his own name as satrap;
and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks.
... The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable
hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the
Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid
of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that
the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but
the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their
maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter
were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the
Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised
the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies,
as pay for the army. ... In return for this, they renounced,
in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the
Greek cities in Asia."
E. C. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 2, lectures. 53 and 54.
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 61 (volume 7).
ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens.
Revolution of Samos.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.-
The Probuli.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
Conspiracy against the Constitution.
The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.
Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became
known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a
number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a
deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and
empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation
for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were
unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the
prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in
its results; various secret associations had sprung up and
conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress
and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the
infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly
here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states,
determined the more respectable members of the community to
guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by
the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful
malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that
populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled
all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there
is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his
partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase
the perplexity and distress of his native city from without,
in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety
and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his
plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile,
Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the
Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the
Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to
obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens
were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles;
and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would
be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were
removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the
commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the
establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any
attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely
with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and
Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with
Alcibiades. ... Their plan was that the latter should
reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which
he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the
assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap
the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to
manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight
undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred
and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but
most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet,
whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the
imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the
prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some
weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of
returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades.
Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and
perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not
persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with
their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above
named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten
plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the
rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling
the constitution."
W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks,
volume 2, pages 252-255.
{178}
The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to
represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of
government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of
which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those
five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of
that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators
thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from
their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of
Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when
news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos,
where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed,
the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it--repudiated it
altogether--and organized themselves as an independent state.
The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his
influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then
an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was
recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a
reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had
given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in
June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their
sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme
sovereignty of the state restored to the people--not, however,
to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of
reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain
amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had
never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired
end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of
similar institutions in other states and to constitute all
Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military
equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the
rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the
name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate
designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last
few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the
abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed,
not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental
principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were
bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the
whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and,
according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution
which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of
Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same
time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish
the union between army and city."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.
Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan
camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.
Thucydides, History, book 8, section 48-97.
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
ALSO IN:
V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 26 (volume 3).
ATHENS: B. C. 411-407.
Victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
Exploits of Alcibiades.
His triumphal return.
His appointment to command.
His second deposition and exile.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
ATHENS: B. C. 406.
The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae.
Condemnation and execution of the Generals.
See GREECE: B. C. 406;
and above: B. C. 424-406.
ATHENS: B. C. 405.
The Peloponnesian War:
Decisive defeat at Aigospotamoi.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
ATHENS: B. C. 404.
The Surrender to Lysander.
After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which
destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the
city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off
supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They
waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in
upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of
their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely
from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the
cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan
harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs
established uniformly in power. About November he reached the
Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus,
while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the
Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica
and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no
longer any power except the power to endure, and that they
exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the
demand that their Long Walls--the walls which protected the
connection of the city with its harbors--should be thrown
down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens
and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There
was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest
and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace.
The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the
acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day
of the Attic month Munychion,--about the middle or end of
March,--that this victorious commander sailed into the
Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the
surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the
Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles,
several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and
assisting him with their counsel."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 65 (volume 8).
The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were
demolished, and then followed the organization of an
oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of
terror under "The Thirty."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 2.
Plutarch, Lysander.
{179}
ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
The tyranny of the Thirty.
The Year of Anarchy.
In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender
of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian
War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had
been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan
friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the
city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was
accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence
of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet
in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this
assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated
sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing
the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty
persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he
declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these
speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts
of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men
outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to
appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both
parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of
Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke
to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their
absolute master. ... By such means the motion of Dracontidas
was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and
cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All
better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote.
Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and
his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of
Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the
anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the
confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the
assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board
of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government
authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the
members of the new government had formerly been among the Four
Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of
action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of
Athens for eight months, and executed their will without
conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in
the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a
picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms
while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large
numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had
escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge,
chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now
sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized
themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to
expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first
seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in
numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few
weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The
Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent
height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered
their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the
usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took
refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the
government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while
Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their
headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of
Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into
Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating;
but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened,
assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts
to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The
result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the
Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The
Thirty were put to death,--treacherously, it was said,--but an
amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which
they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official
annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates
were not recognized.
E. Curtius, History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5, and book 5, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 3-4.
C. Sankey, The Spartan and Theban Supremacies.
chapter 2-3.
ATHENS: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
Alliance with Persia.
The Corinthian War.
Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls.
Athenian independence restored.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
ATHENS: B. C. 378-371.
Brief alliance with Thebes against Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
The New Confederacy and the Social War.
Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to
appear of the decline of Spartan power--during the year of the
archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made
memorable at Athens by various movements of political
regeneration,--the organization of a new Confederacy was
undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a
century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but
only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat
of the federal council. ... Callistratus was in a sense the
Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to
bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in
place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments
necessary to the existence of the confederation were
introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' ...
Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and
Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at
once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even
such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in
confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.
This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and
influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years.
But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy,
namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves
in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an
inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted
three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the
secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their
independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power,
just at the time when she was called upon to resist the
encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 42.
ATHENS: B. C. 370-362.
Alliance with Sparta against Thebes.
Battle of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
{180}
ATHENS: B. C. 359-338.
The collision with Philip of Macedon.
The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.
"A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power
under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to
notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of
the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the
efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time
of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just
practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was
now a kind of balance of power between the three leading
States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was
greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could
easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus
when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a
man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who,
like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the
sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found
her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of
Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she
was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy,
Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but
she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this
period seem to represent the currents of Greek political
thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes
represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a
union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the
common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to
have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that
the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no
longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general
Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an
arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who
might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading
States. ... The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall
into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B.
C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens
alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece
as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind
was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen
her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he
perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. ... After 346
his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic.
But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the
Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real
and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His
strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies
too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the
Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What
was needed was a real federal union between the leading
States, with a strong central controlling force; and
Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could
never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city.
Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most
heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is
the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age
and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on
Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one
who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece.
He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and
to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions
of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more
prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. ... Phocion was the
somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of
thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some
time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the
rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the
history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and
with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as
well as to a particular city. ... Athens was far more open to
criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical
dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of
the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong
government of reason. ... Aristotle took the facts of city
life as they were and showed how they might be made the most
of. ... To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and
war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as
natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though
he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the
conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform,
even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. ...
Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a
manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a
negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism,
like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most
momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an
alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with
Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence.
Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources
were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be
found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid
courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could
not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion
despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The
faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they
also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting
on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated
either Athens, Greece, or Philip. ... A policy of resistance
found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of
inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would
still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy,
that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the
presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second
policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for
Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip
assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."
W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
chapter 10.
See, also, GREECE: 357-336.
ATHENS: B. C. 340.
Alliance with Byzantium against Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 340.
{181}
ATHENS: B. C. 336-322.
End of the Struggle with the Macedonians.
Fall of Democracy.
Death of Demosthenes.
Athenian decline.
"An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things.
Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as
yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately
Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but
Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible
vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league;
Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters,
are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that
time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king.
His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for
Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta
attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is
overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most
celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the
most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to
depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more
embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party;
and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall.
When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came
with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether
he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused
of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent.
This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and
as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence
he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for
his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He
resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence
he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica.
Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the
clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The
moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded
every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed
through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number
and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against
Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed
his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a
day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to
bring back the advocate of liberty. ... It was a momentary
glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to
conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them
the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends
were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of
Demades were condemned to die. ... Demosthenes had escaped to
the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge
in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias,
the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself
under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write
something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained
in it."
A. H. L. Heeren, Reflections on the Politics of Ancient
Greece, translated by G. Bancroft, pages 278-280.
See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of
Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens,
GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
"With the decline of political independence, ... the mental
powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit
together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the
habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part,
gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and
their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too
much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the
times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of
relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things.
What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy
would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were
studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of
the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. ... Stoic
apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic
imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the
political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines,
too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same
political helplessness produced the sinking of national
distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the
separation of morals from politics which characterise the
philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers
between nations, together with national independence, had been
swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united
in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into
close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach
that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens
of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to
his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social
ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths
which had been already realised in part, and which were in
part corollaries from the existing state of society."
E. Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,
pages 16-18.
"What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the
age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his
successors--they lasted barely two generations--printed in a
few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens.
There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at
Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people,
idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their
earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental
reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life,
and regarded the complications of a love affair as more
interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and
loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our
day who spend all their time reading novels from the
libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in
twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were
surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and
interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to
exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great
object--liberty--to give them a keen pursuit in life. The
relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were
bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want
of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class
was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of
these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled
men, established those relations which brought estragements,
if not ruin, into the home life of the day."
J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 123-124.
{182}
"The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the
accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must
have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except
by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain.
I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed
upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder.
The price of even necessary and simple things must have often
risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home
large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies
made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in
the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which
they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the
appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery,
but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have
profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also
the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have
copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental
stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example
of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not
affect those in contact with them. These influences were not
only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show
off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old
townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I
imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were
the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and
mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which
preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private
houses, and not temples and public buildings only--a change
beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in
like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern
world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was
modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from
shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of
bronze--a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still
admired for its very antiquity."
J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 105-106.
"The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the
question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops
with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens
before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the
campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of
the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the
supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down
to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the
constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent
views we regard that of the German historian as the most
correct. ... The historic sense of Grote did not exclude
prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by
political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter,
after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate
Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he
throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and
humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no
longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will
have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy
was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria,
when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul,
and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his
baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have
stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to
the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else
persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek
power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt
his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph
abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of
Hellas. ... The truth is, that the history of Greece consists
of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other.
The first recounts the stories of the Persian and
Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes
and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which
it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the
Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with
their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily,
Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities
care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one
another. Their political institutions, their religious
ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language,
commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are
the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek
history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to
us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling
kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind
in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized
life over the known world. In the first period of her history
Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the
world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient
expression, and call the history of independent Greece the
history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of
Hellenism. ... The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the
cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes,
were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of
the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their
councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the
Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position
quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek
cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal
terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of
the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose
history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece,
and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of
any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. ... On the
field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were
wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a
succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from
obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of
Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian
garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief
cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the
recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian
Greeks. ... In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented
itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians
languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every
day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of
life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the
background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the
West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood
the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and
showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer
faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league
somewhat on the plan of the Achaean.
{183}
But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians,
whose union was of a different character. It was the first
time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in
order to prey upon its neighbours. ... In the course of the
Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the
Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and
philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity
than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still
more it resulted from growing materialism among the people,
who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs,
and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in
life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the
religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its
nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national,
almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians
suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East,
and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an
extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions
ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the
world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and
natives. ... Into Greece proper, in return for her population
which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities.
Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many
votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made
more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed
by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the
days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places
and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old
and strange. On the coins of the previous period the
representations of deities had been always the best that the
die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest
contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them
strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling
early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos.
... In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left
vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions
of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics
and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all
educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt
our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the
Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat
coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy
was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the
ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by
their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we
have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can
have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks.
Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held
to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the
importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the
Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more
modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is
less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks
of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects
the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable
similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the
power over material nature, arising alike from the greater
accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid
development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces
of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts
upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak,
centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most
conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and
superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In
both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a
distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and
family life, and to make the individual rather than the family
or the city the unit of social life. And in the family
relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of
morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods
similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."
P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 15.
ATHENS: B. C. 317-316.
Siege by Polysperchon.
Democracy restored.
Execution of Phocion.
Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.
See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
ATHENS: B.C. 307-197.
Under Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Antigonids.
See GREECE: B. C.307-197.
ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
Twenty years of Independence.
Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.
When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C.
288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose
against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and
the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated
to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid
siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so
far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to
assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired.
The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the
Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession,
undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed
after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period,
B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having
regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens,
and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and
Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the
Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions,
was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession
of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a
master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes
called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic
Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence
of his city.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 61.
ATHENS: B. C. 229.
Liberation by the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
ATHENS: B. C. 200.
Vandalism of the second Macedonian Philip.
In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an
attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in
the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the
Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He
destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art,
all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs.
The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples,
schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not
even the sepulchres were spared."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 64.
{184}
ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.
Under Roman rule.
"Athens ... affords the disheartening picture of a
commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as
well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found
itself in a flourishing condition. ... No city of antiquity
elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica,
of about 700 square miles. ... But even beyond Attica they
retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic
War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in
which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of
Cæsar;--he asked them only how often they would still ruin
themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their
ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the
territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but
also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of
their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the
lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos
in the Aegean. ... Of the further grants, which they had the
skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against
whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and
Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller
islands of the Thracian Sea. ... Hadrian, moreover, gave to
them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the
Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them
no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions
was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the
Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the
expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege,
hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it
were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful
institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed
since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the
capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the
Athenians from his purse. ... Yet the community was in
constant distress."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
J. P. Mahaffy, The Greek World under Roman Sway.
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.
ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.
Siege and capture by Sulla.
Massacre of citizens.
Pillage and depopulation.
Lasting injuries.
The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage
war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor
among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the
fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army.
Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek
revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing
from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself
tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by
the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then
Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the
principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by
blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such
weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed
and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city
suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus
was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven
the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that
they evacuated in no long time.
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 17.
"Athens was ... taken by assault. ... The majority of the
citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to
become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private
movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed
some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to
the flames. ... The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly
destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's
campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and
depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of
property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens
from that time lost its commercial as well as its political
importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost
extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous
mass of settlers, received the right of
citizenship."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 1.
ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?).
The Visit of St. Paul.
Planting of Christianity.
"When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of
God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither
likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then
immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to
the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they
that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and
receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they
should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while
Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within
him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in
the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in
the market place every day with them that met with him. And
certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers
encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say?
other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took
hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May
we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would
know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians
and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing
else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul
stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of
Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat
superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects
of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription,
'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance,
this set I forth unto you. ... Now when they heard of the
resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We
will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out
from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and
believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a
woman named Damaris, and others with them."
Acts of the Apostles, Revised Version, chapter 17.
{185}
"Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting
of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great
Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an
assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars'
Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens
of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and
grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided
he had received some educational impressions beyond the
fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that
wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate
prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn
indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her
philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant
afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments
flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his
imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from
Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as
the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human
refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of
admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most
brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and
position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time
within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of
a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but
was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of
this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a
religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but
on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem
insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was,
this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle,
capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty,
yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the
truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to
the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen,
yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with
everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding
all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of
complacent euphemism--where could a more uncongenial soil be
found for the seed of the Gospel? ... To an Athenian the Jew
was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor
even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute
indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic
philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism
alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That
Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would
be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of
meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether
uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds
were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the
Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo,
witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even
into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the
quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and
still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And
just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained
its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens,
more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a
faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than
a century we find this faith so well established there as to
yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person
of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of
its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian
Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period
before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that
one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection
to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality,
will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over
every relic of the Christianity of Athens."
C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early
Christianity, volume 1, book 3, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Life and Letters of
St. Paul, volume 1, chapter 10.
F. C. Baur, Paul, part 1, chapter 7 (volume l).
On the inscription,
See E. de Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity:
The Apostolic Era, book 2, chapter 1.
ATHENS: A. D. 125-134.
The works of Hadrian.
The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the
venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or
resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between
A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the
city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and
supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been
reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of
Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called
"Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new
temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the
works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast
national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated
back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his
hand to without finishing.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 66.
ATHENS: A. D. 267.
Capture of, by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
ATHENS: A. D. 395.
Surrender to Alaric and the Goths.
When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D.
395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the
city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of
Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious
general, is ... perfectly established. The public buildings
and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton
destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that
Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city
and its inhabitants."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2, section 8.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 30
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717.
See, also, GOTHS: A. D. 395, ALARIC'S INVASION OF GREECE.
ATHENS: A. D. 529.
Suppression of the Schools by Justinian.
"The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their
superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of
Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed
a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient
art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the
business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians
were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their
taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at
least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In
the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the
Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the
Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated
with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured
in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and
pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to
the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders
still lived in those venerable seats. ...
{186}
The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most
virtuous of the Roman princes. ... Some vestige of royal
bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. ...
The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic
succession, continued ... to the edict of Justinian [A. D.
529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of
Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few
remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ATHENS: A. D. 1205.
The founding of the Latin Dukedom.
"The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of
Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of
Constantinople, A. D. 1204--see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of
Romania. ... The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and
Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the
isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of
Athens can alone be traced in any detail. ... Otho de la
Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself
during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the
army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of
Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his
share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that
the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his
portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of
Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that
Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his
immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania.
... Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were
severe sufferers by the transference of the government into
the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace
and security. ... The social civilization of the inhabitants,
and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the
luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the
condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now
inferior. ... The city was large and wealthy, the country
thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be
traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites.
... The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of
the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of
the West where chivalry flourished."
G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the
Crusaders, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course.
lecture 5.
ATHENS: A. D. 1311-1456.
Under the Catalans and the Florentines.
See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
ATHENS: A. D. 1456.
The Turks in possession.
Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after
the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D.
1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of
the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of
the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a
young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her
talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made
regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said
to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her
hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco,
stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople
to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of
all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the
affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of
Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to
take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to
confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara."
This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his
way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by
the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the
complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the
legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara
under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the
duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him
for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it,
and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent
principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as
he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than
Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What
gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple
of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of
Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the
genius of the Greeks.'"
A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 13, section 10-12.
ATHENS: A. D. 1466.
Capture and plundering by the Venetians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
ATHENS: A. D. 1687.
Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians.
Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829.
The Greek revolution and war of independence.
Capture by the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------ATHENS: End--------------
ATHERTON GAG, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
ATHLONE, Siege of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
ATHRAVAS.
See MAGIANS.
ATIMIA.
The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the
loss of civic rights.
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
ATIMUCA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUCUA.
ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
Sherman's advance to the city.
Its siege and capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September).
Exclusive military occupation of the city.
Removal of inhabitants.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (November).
Destruction of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
----------ATLANTA: End----------
ATLANTIC OCEAN:
The name.
The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single
passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental
way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one
well known in his day."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 7, section 1, note.
For a sketch of the history of the modern use of the name,
See PACIFIC OCEAN.
{187}
ATREBATES, The.
This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which
occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also,
by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a
region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was
probably a colony from the former.
See BELGÆ;
also BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
ATROPATENE.--MEDIA ATROPATENE.
"Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of
Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek
Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier.
'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected
by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old
fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the
Seleucids."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 4.
Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh,
together with the country intervening between that basin and
the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern
corner of the Caspian."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who
had declared himself king after Alexander's death."
J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13.
ATSINAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
ATTABEGS.
See ATABEGS.
ATTACAPAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATTACAPAN FAMILY.
ATTAMAN, or HETMAN.
See COSSACKS.
ATTECOTTI, The.
See OTADENI;
also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
ATTIC SALT.
Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks,
"which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was
seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in
the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an
article of trade."
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
ATTIC TALENT.
See TALENT.
ATTIC WAR, The.
See TEN YEARS' WAR.
ATTICA.
"It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by
trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern
Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from
north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated
the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason
Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of
Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an
uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in
their origin to the land. ... On the other hand Attica was
perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the
sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of
coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of
the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible;
while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite
the mariner to land. The first landings by which the
monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were
interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated
the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar
on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor
came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced
the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed
by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The
population became mixed. ... This first epoch of the national
history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It
forms the transition from the life of rural districts and
villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with
twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king,
who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every
twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall
and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common
national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve
towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would
have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable
advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of
the Cephisus. ... Into the centre of the entire plain advances
from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among
them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the
exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all
sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad
level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries
of the national gods and the habitations of the national
rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock
in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the
national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the
twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named
after the national king Cecrops. ... So far from being
sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy
means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a
sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted
to the cultivation of barley; everywhere ... labour and a
regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not
unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered
were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the
mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus;
and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the
beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain
nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most
excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was
to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture.
The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and
finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough
to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and
transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive
of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened
the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and
animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of
the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar
history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were
agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself
overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she
admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller
groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an
invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of
a violent revolution. ... The immigrants who domesticated
themselves in Attica were ... chiefly families of superior
eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of
population, but also in materials of culture of every
description."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. I. Lockhart, Attica and Athens.
See also. ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.
{188}
ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.
See HUNS.
ATTIOUANDARONK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS. &c.
ATTYADÆ, The.
The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung
from Attys, son of the god Manes.
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 17.
AUBAINE, The right of.
"A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the
property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being
naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of
Louis XIV.
J. A. Blanqui, History of Political Economy in Europe,
page 285.
AUCH:
Origin of the name.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
AUCKLAND, Lord, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
AUDENARDE.
See OUDINARDE.
AUDIENCIAS.
"For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South
America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial
government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time
this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru
residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient
administration from such a centre ... at once became apparent.
Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore,
established in the distant provinces, and their presidents,
sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of
the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia
of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile
was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was
established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president
of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general.
The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as
captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a
captain-general."
C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America.
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 8, page 295).
AUERSTADT, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
AUGEREAU, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER);
GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
AUGHRIM, OR AGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
AUGSBURG: Origin.
See AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 955.
Great defeat of the Hungarians.
See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530.
Sitting of the Diet.
Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1555.
The Religious Peace concluded.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1646.
Unsuccessful siege by Swedes and French.
See GERMANY; A. D. 1646-1648.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1686-1697.
The League and the War of the League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1703.
Taken by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
AUGSBURG: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
----------AUGSBURG: End----------
AUGURS.--PONTIFICES.--FETIALES.
"There was ... enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome.
Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the
god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer
addressed himself directly to the divinity; ... no
intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure
this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter
to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of
speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with
it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to
ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and
even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was
natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should
regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their
advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men
specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national
Italian institution, which had a far more important influence
on political development than the individual priests or
priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously,
confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged
with the worship of a specific divinity. ... Under the Roman
constitution and that of the Latin communities in general
there were originally but two such colleges: that of the
augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled
in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of
birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and
reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge
builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function,
as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the
building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They
were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of
measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the
duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming
to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of
festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every
judicial act took place on the right day. ... Thus they
acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after
the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman
worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president
of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] ... They
themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the
science of things divine and human.' ... By the side of these
two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in
spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the
twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation)
destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the
remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring
communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged
infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand
satisfaction and declare war."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book I, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103.
See, also, AUSPICES, and FETIALES.
{189}
AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.
See TUÈVES, ORIGIN OF.
AUGUSTA VEROMANDUORUM.
Modern St. Quentin.
See BELGÆ.
AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.
"Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may
be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest
of Rhætia by Drusus. ... The Itineraries represent it as the
centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 36, note.
AUGUSTODUNUM.
The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to
Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.
AUGUSTONEMETUM.
See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.
AUGUSTUS.--AUGUSTA:
The Title.
"Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of
the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had
abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the
acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree.
The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were
peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully
aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of
honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which
the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the
subtler policy of creating another for himself, which
borrowing its original splendour from his own character,
should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. ... The epithet
Augustus ... had never been borne by any man before. ... But
the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to
things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites
of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the
word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the
divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and
authority of Jove himself. ... The illustrious title was
bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of
the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by
the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 30.
"When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now
left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of
distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title,
decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an
epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect
and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. ...
This being an honorary appellation ... it would, as a matter
of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his
immediate descendants. ... Claudius, although he could not be
regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his
accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed
by all succeeding rulers ... who communicated the title of
Augusta to their consorts."
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 5.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
AULA REGIA, The.
See CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.
AULDEARN, Battle of (A. D. 1645).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
AULERCI, The.
The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which
occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the
Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes--the
Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.
Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2.
AULIC COUNCIL, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
AUMALE, Battle of (1592).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
AUNEAU, Battle of (1587).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
AURANGZEB, Moghul Emperor, or Padischah of India, A. D.
1658-1707.
AURAY, Battle of (1365).
See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.
AURELIAN, Roman Emperor. A. D.270-275.
AURELIAN ROAD, The.
One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome
to Pisa and Luna.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11.
AURELIO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 768-774.
AURUNCANS, The.
See AUSONIANS;
also OSCANS.
AUSCI, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
AUSGLEICH, The.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
AUSONIANS, OR AURUNCANS, The.
A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower
valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been
exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 10.
See, also, OSCANS.
AUSPICES, Taking the.
"The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never
entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public
or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to
ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the
undertaking. ... This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;'
and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was
abandoned or deferred. ... No meeting of the Comitia Curiata
nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the
auspices had been previously taken. ... As far as public
proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among
the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty
devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. ... In an army
this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and
hence all achievements were said to be performed under his
auspices, even although he were not present. ... The objects
observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of
animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave
spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications
by their flight ... others by their notes or cries ... while a
third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages.
When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food
was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported
themselves was closely watched. ... The manner of taking the
auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:--The
magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose
immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been
summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. ... With his
aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which
the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining
staff ('lituus') of the augur. ... This operation was
performed with the greatest care. ... In making the necessary
observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur,
who reported to him the result."
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 13.
See, also, AUGUR.
{190}
AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
"About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made
to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy,
and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in
spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault,
already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful
spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic
privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order,
sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter
and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other
churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. ...
Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at
canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a
new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons
Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and
unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully
distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but
all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the
observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of
the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom
they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between
the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic
confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the
monastic side. ... The Austin canons, as they were commonly
called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Age.,
chapter 3.
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
Discovery and early exploration.
The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.
"Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the
first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea
of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would
seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves
and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve
their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long
had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that
island-continent, which until recent years was best known by
her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted
for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence
which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached
the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch
yacht Duyphen, or Dove,--the earliest vessel whose name has
been handed down,--sighted, about March, 1606, what is
believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in
a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in
1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was
made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six
maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and
1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called
Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."
F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria,
chapter 1.
In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru,
across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far
that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place
'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land
of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really
a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and
more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. ... In
after years, the name he had invented was divided into two
parts; the island he had really discovered being called
Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had
discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was
shortened by another discoverer--Flinders--to the present term
Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the
small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next
twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality.
"In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed
along the southern coast, and its name was given to the
southwest cape of Australia. ... In 1628 General Carpenter
sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has
taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all
the northern and western, together with part of the southern
shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had
some idea of colonizing this continent. ... During the next
fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in
1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions
in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman,
with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman
discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but
which has since been named in his own honor--Tasmania. "This
he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if
it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia."
In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the
command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he
explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of
Australia; but the description which he gave of the country
did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We
hear of no further explorations in this part of the world
until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought
of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the
year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly
brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that
the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769,
persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to
the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on
this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the
distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the
'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments
embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the
renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes
of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite,
and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the
shores of New Zealand and Australia.
{191}
Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern
coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles
inland, and two of his scientific friends--Sir Joseph Banks
and Dr. Solander--made splendid collections of botanical
specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany
Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks
and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook ... took
possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty,
giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the
resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales.
Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed
a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine
it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour
of his friend Sir George Jackson. ... The reports brought home
by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in
those days with regard to Australia. ... It so happened that,
shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal
with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population.
In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the
English then found they could no longer send their convicts
over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time
the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became
necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just
as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called
attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose,
both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance.
Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to
Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and
in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of
eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January,
1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a
proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of
the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for
something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to
examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port
Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water,
with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent
prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the
most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him
far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It
seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there
with lovely islets. ... Captain Phillip selected, as the place
most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in
honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was
so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two
of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the
founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual
starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the
population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons.
Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk
Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had
resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor
Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought
with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon,
George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They
were young men of the most admirable character. ... Within a
month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about
eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.'
Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this
small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully
charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an
open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the
region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear
his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or
Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and
Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop,
sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's
Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared.
Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to
make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so.
Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on
the way by the French and held in captivity for six years,
while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years
after being released.
A. and G. Sutherland, History of Australia, chapter 1-3.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, chapter 1-3 (volume 1).
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales.
Introduction of sheep-farming.
The founding of Victoria and South Australia.
"For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to
New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously
called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor
creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only
civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted
clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the
first batch of convicts. ... Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered
on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement
for twelve years. His administration was the first turning
point in its history. ... Macquarie saw that the best and
cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen
as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked
on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the
government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he
could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage
the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one
day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue
the government farms, and to employ the convicts in
road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When
he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the
town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was
stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains,
which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in
1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on
which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie
surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains
above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling
them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only
was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures
of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made,
connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers
were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains.
{192}
Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river,
and the settlement at Newcastle formed. ... When it became
known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free
colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly
changing their character, English and Scotch people soon
bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie
returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as
populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and
many years in advance of what it might have been under a less
able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine
pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the
colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long
before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that
the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world.
The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more
abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a
lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several
years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon
the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the
colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and
procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of
George III. ... The Privy Council listened to his wool
projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had
found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the
great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was
well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without
waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense
tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called
squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the
government and thus got their runs, as they called the great
districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain
extent secured to them. ... Hundreds upon hundreds of square
miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and
stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. ... It was in
the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that
the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in
England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital
with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became
enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as
depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that
the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but
in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the
question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir
Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England;
and English working men now turned their attention to
Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or
free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these
classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally
enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own
exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in
greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population
into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press
were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling
Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825].
The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of
them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth
the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the
capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in
his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony.
The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was
supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray
river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray
river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on
the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time,
the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was
commenced. Darling ... was the first to sell the land at a
small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. ...
Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years
administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a
fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the
colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which
now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in
1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a
convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was
neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South
Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and
north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an
exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country
around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this
new land, which had been called, from its rich promise,
Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a
capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the
English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the
beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen
Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its
being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony
arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829.
This was called South Australia, and the first governor
arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended
capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William
IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system,
called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the
founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most
effectually, because they were quite independent of the
experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr.
Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. ... His
notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to
represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong
democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce
in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found
in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners:
and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting
labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than
they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out
these ideas in South Australia. ... Like the settlement of
Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan
for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the
non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political
economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an
Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made
fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to
the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a
delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and
lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became
almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so
did those of the capitalists who had anything left. ... The
depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It
contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it
of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of
the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities
of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and
produces large quantities of wool."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, volume 1-2.
{193}
AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855.
Progress of the Port Phillip District.
Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the
colony of Victoria.
Discovery of Gold.
Constitutional organization of the colony.
"In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly
6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep
in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and
horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place
was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore
decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent,
to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor
of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was
appointed to this office. ... He arrived at Melbourne on the
30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new
community appear to have become affected by a mania for
speculation. ... As is always the case when speculation takes
the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became
fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in
consideration of the amount of business done, and large
transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From
highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. ... Such a state
of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the
population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. ... From
this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder
business system took the place of the speculative one. ... All
this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South
Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered
in consequence. ... A cry was raised for separation. The
demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South
Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased
activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities.
The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th
November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the
satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in
Melbourne for five consecutive days. ... Before, however, the
separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary
that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle
details. ... The requisite forms were at length given effect
to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since
been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was
proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales
had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria,
after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time
the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank
of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of
separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the
sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. ... In a little more than
a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent
colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold
existed within its borders. ... The discovery of gold ... in
New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused
numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered
detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was
held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a
'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized
to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative
quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on
the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties
were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The
precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the
Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and
Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and
eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer
and to extend over a wider area than any which had been
discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the
adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. ...
When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the
United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other
European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from
the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart
Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to
try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all,
swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general
scramble for wealth. ... The important position which the
Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the
discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent
thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government
determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should
be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as
its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar
circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and
afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly
based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the
establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make
laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented
generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative
Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative
Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of
both Houses to be elective and to possess property
qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either
property or professional qualifications [the property
qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has
since been abolished]. ... The Upper House not to be
dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to
be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved
every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the
discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the
Government, four at least of whom should have seats in
Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' ... This
Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November,
1855."
H. H. Hayter, Notes on the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of
Victoria, volume 2.
W. Westgarth, First Twenty Years of the Colony of
Victoria.
{194}
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales.
Its erection into the colony of Queensland.
"Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth
Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged
to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had
grown so large that it was erected into a separate and
independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies
between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude
138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on
the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South
Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia;
on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and
on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an
area ... twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times
as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England.
... Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the
outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is]
Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital
of the colony. ... The mineral wealth of Queensland is very
great, and every year sees it more fully developed. ... Until
the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold
mining as an industry was hardly known."
C. H. Eden, The Fifth Continent, chapter 10.
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.
Proposed Federation of the Colonies.
"It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow
countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the
term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the
empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common
purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a
'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its
decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted
afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland,
Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South
Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted,
it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not
unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right
direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation
Conference, not private but representative of the different
Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to
the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that
the best interests of the Australian colonies require the
early formation of a union under the Crown into one
Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed
quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the
hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful
factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the
election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the
Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A
Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891,
which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the
several Colonies."
A. Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire,
chapter 7, section 2.
"On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian
Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South
Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each
Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry
Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the
Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland),
Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry
Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several
days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which
the Federal Government should be established, which were to
the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies
should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would
be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that
intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power
to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal
Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military
defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces
under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of
a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal
Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal
Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia,
should be established; and that a Federal Executive,
consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers,
should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at
great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions
were then referred to three Committees chosen from the
delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the
distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters
relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the
other to consider the question of the establishment of a
Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the
'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first
mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration
was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill
should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for
approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention
closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation
of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a
Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National
Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the
Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still
(October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has
passed the Lower House with some amendments."
Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 308.
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.
New South Wales and Victoria.
"New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical
resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same
population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues,
expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects
in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total
population. ... But ... considerable differences lie behind
and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in
the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than
Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which
distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she
possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and
will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although
New South Wales is three and a half times as large as
Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy
combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other
but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent
[namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia].
{195}
As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted
emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been
Irish, while the English section was largely composed of
Chartists, ... the legislation of New South Wales has
naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was
carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe
and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens
Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to
religion. A public system of education was introduced, with
other measures of democratic legislation. ... Public
education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by
fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning
from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general
it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent
times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. ...
The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into
the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial
aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of
squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of
1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those
against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural
causes--soil, climate and the lack of water. ... The traces of
the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight
in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness,
running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more
vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least
the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of
the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists
in a young country. ... A population of an excellent type has
swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the
unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain
to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either
somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case
with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh,
or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and
left no descendants. The convicts were also of various
classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome
of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those
transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were
people of average morality ruined through companions, wives,
or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially
depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in
a new country, away from their old companions and old
temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and
their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their
ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to
man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would
not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On
the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken
ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the
'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all
facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the
earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold
discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the
diggings."
Sir C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain,
part 2, chapter 2.
AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.
"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the
Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to
distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West.
But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of
the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the
latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia
(New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the
original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German
bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them
(a difference so great as to lead to their permanent
separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the
treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish
element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by
which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included
the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German
element was wholly predominant. The import of the word
Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its
widest sense it was used to denote all the countries
incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in
subjection to it, in which the German language and population
prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the
territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even
that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper
sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks
themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was
subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower
Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness
of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north
by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest
[southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning
below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and
Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of
Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above
Arcis."
W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.
"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with
a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we
have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike,
Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first
occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived
the most compactly and in the greatest number. ... This was,
in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence,
while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not
it--'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth
of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at
Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have
separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the
northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the
exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of
the Salian Franks in Gaul. ... To such an extent had they been
absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the
population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them
Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as
the merest untutored barbarians."
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 13, with note.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 5, section 5.
See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.
{196}
AUSTRIA: The Name.
"The name of Austria, Oesterreich--Ostrich as our forefathers
wrote it---is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern
part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its
Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria
also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never
given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia.
But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the
Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German
kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on
to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become
one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a
process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."--
E. A. Freeman, The Historical Geography of Europe, volume 1,
chapter 8, page 305.
AUSTRIA:
The birthplace.
"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict,
were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were
to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both
were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was
the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube,
beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so
many invaders from the Orient. ... The cradle of Prussia was
the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in
the region of the exterminated Slavs."
E. Lavisse, General View of the Political
History of Europe, chapter 3, section 13.
AUSTRIA:
The Singularity of Austrian history.
A power which is not a national power.
"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the
various lands which have at different times come under the
dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by
itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common
power. A continuous narrative is impossible. ... Much mischief
has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has
within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers
on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done
only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical.
We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia,
Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only
England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in
this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere
question of style. For those are all national powers. ... But
when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,'
direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are
misrepresented. ... I have seen the words 'Austrian national
honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria'
was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians'
spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are
misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria'
means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what
is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the
sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of
those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like
that of the people of England, France, or Italy. ... There is
no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can
be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there
be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an
English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the
English or French government carries out the will of the
English or French nation. ... Such phrases as 'Austrian
interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the
interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They
simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling
family, which may often be the same as the interests and
wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can
never represent any common interest or common wish on the part
of the whole. ... We must ever remember that the dominions of the
House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies,
etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which
have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common
feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the
Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a
whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only
parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the
closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie
close to them, but which are under other governments. The only
bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars,
treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign.
The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count
of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is
all. ... The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of
Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European
history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but
in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of
the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The
power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power
of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers
of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps,
with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of
warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these
powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two
princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria
has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the
long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman
Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were
elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something
great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has
done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that
another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the
Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been
already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only
scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar
nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national
power. ... The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with
known boundaries which have changed singularly little for
several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of
Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing.
Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called
'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one
of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is
constantly forgotten. ... A smaller point on which confusion
also prevails is this.
{197}
All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of
as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people,
if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it
was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as
grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In
truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He
has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria
still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well.
But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all
called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the
Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same
way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes
and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking
of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in
1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had
ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect,
was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture
which has thoroughly well served its ends."
E. A. Freeman, Preface to Leger's History of
Austria-Hungary.
"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern
History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two
portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and
dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place
of both rights and forces. ... Austria may be regarded as
representing the more ancient form of right. ... The middle
ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year
1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian,
were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as
embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea
of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a
profound influence with politicians. ... The house of Austria
... lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one
of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by
violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well
advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief
forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law
is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but
that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The
imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the
super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that
legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had
raised upon it."
William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval
and Modern History, pages 209-215.
[Image]
ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.
AUSTRIA:
The Races.
"The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890
for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;--
Austria (1890):
German 8,461,580;
Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871;
Polish 3,719,232;
Ruthenian 3,105,221;
Slovene 1,176,672;
Servian and Croatian 644,926;
Italian and Latin 675,305;
Roumanian 209,110;
Magyar 8,139.
Hungary (1880):
German 1,972,115;
Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806;
Ruthenian 360,051;
Slovene 86,401;
Servian and Croatian 2,359,708;
Roumanian 2,423,387;
Magyar 6,478,711;
Gipsies 82,256;
Others 83,940,"
Statesman's Year-Book, 1893; edited by J. S, Keltie.
----------AUSTRIA: End----------
A Logical Outline of Austrian History
In Which The Dominant Conditions And
Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.
[Red] Physical or material.
[Blue] Ethnological.
[Green] Social and political.
[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black] Foreign.
The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in
being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,--
the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power.
Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable
arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic
Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the
Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected,
in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in
Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the
territory so named contributed little more than a strong central
position and a capital town.
Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian
history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that
his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character
was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the
weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they
had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the
benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him
and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the
Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy),
Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons.
The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its
history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time
until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the
higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind;
but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic
self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted
through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these
qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective
Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs
of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the
wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the
weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater
houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid
Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical
functions of the Emperor--small as the actual powers that he
held might be--were instruments of policy which the Austrian
princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages
and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and
craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the
consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of
Austria has pursued its aims.
By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear
from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one,
the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and
Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of
Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including
Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never
moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the
carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties,
united in no way but by homage to a common prince.
The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given
most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the
judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian
crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it
the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and
Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of
s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the
dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in
its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a
mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has
supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was
otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.
The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most
extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that
part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders
fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was
final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The
Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are
scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until
recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German
power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself.
This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent
influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria
bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven
together and clinging around it; and through the broken and
divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and
princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could
lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom,
to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then
Austria--expelled by it from the Teutonic circle--first found her
true place in the politics of Europe.
For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien
interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire--
the proper subject of their care,--and they were drawn to alien
sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the
hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large
majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the
Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of
the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly
responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of
Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength
in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the
hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the
sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they
deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head
of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the
Holy Roman Empire--that lingering fiction of history,--and yet
assuming to be an Emperor still--the Emperor of an Empire which
rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.
The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break
the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family
of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which
extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false
relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to
the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among
her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her
neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise.
It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in
nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It
listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the
resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal
Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and
champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won
Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with
those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized
world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.
Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity--
the Prussian and the Austrian--to account, and weighed them
together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of
Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization
of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny
in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its
statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from
the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has
learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher
in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It
has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great
nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its
interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to
which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and
Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe
is to command the precarious future of the southeastern
states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous
Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are
united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the
colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are
united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood
free.
[Right Margin]
9th Century.
The March.
A. D. 1272.
Rodolph of Hapsburg.
Emperor.
A. D. 1282.
The House in possession.
A. D. 1438.
The Imperial Crown.
A. D. 1363-1526.
Gathering of crowns and coronets.
The mixture of races.
A. D. 1521-1531.
The Reformation.
A. D. 1618-1648.
Thirty Years War.
A. D. 1806.
End of the Holy Roman Empire.
A. D. 1815-1866.
Policy of Metternich.
vs. policy of Stein.
A. D. 1859.
Loss of Lombardy.
A. D. 1866.
Seven Weeks War.
Loss of Venice.
A. D. 1867.
Austro-Hungarian Empire.
A. D. 1882.
The Triple Alliance.
-----End of "A Logical Outline..."-----
{198}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy,
under the Babenbergs.
Changing relations to Bavaria.
End of the Babenberg Dynasty.
"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the
German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above:
AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the
first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto
III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to
which it is there applied was created a march after the
destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like
all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into
two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so
called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia,
Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia--the sea-coast having
been ceded to the Eastern emperor;--the eastern margraviate
comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper
Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark
included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was
completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. ... The early
history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which
the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar
and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom,
and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with
its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In
876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it
lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince,
in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was
destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their
frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or
Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to
Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted
to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of
Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with
him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country
during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house
of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from
the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau,
in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It
reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms
part of the kingdom of Bavaria. ... Though not of right an
hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and
remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so
important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was
glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial
interest of one family. ... The marriages of the Babenbergs
were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that
name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of
Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle
began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of
Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose
representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and
Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was
placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony
was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy
of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the
Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son
under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle
Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their
old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer
Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of
Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and
was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the
margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II.
endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the
widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry
the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the
Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the
German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him.
Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the
decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this
unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the
emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward,
Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of
the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the
Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria
and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first
hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st
of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in
the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves
from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian
territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened
extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. ... Henry
II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a
fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding
country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many
at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by
Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of
Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory.
This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took
its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar
III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a
margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of
the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar
VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of
duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the
Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria
his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has
remained so ever since. ... Leopold V. is the first of the
Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He
joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur
de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when
Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass
through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself
by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling
his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks.
Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did
much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the
staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the
city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with
many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called
Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the
Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors,
including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were
against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the
Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.
L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
E. F. Henderson, Select History Documents of the
Middle Ages, book 2, number 7.
{199}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.
"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of
Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian
genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual
pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry
it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the
seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count
of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson
of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and
on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh
['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the
residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the
descendants of Guntram. ... The successors of Werner increased
their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the
Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or
administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or
districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor
of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that
part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held
the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received
from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the
town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the
Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory
by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden,
whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy,
by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 1.
"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided
between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former
receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of
Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter,
the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other
territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count
of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who
was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the
baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his
father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but
the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal
uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own
lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. ... His
disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into
repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. ... In a
quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops
against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for
which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then
entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom
he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars
against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV.
King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this
little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with
the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which
that election carried with it, was due to a singular
friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before.
When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to
Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across
the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection
secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with
the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop
conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272,
after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272],
the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor,
the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a
candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as
desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative
lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from
whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims
of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at
length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke
of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. ...
The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the
contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince ...
persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as
his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria,
Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources;
and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of
Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these
four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and
distrust of the other German Princes. To all these
territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently
disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria
[and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy,
together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece
Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the
latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose
uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria
and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of
Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies
on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip,
brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the
Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to
Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian
dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to
pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph
with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and
confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way
he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he
compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the
last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a
bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when
Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The
terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul
of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support
of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a
desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in
which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian
troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the
Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men.
In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to
appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy.
{200}
But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the
Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and
Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The
projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of
Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose
sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King
of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the
several claimants to those territories by various cessions of
lands .... obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to
the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two
surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with
those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at
this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."
Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
J. Planta, History of the Helvetic Confederacy.
book 1. chapter 5 (volume 1).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315.
Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons.
The Tell Legend.
The Battle of Morgarten.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290.
Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349.
Loss and recovery of the imperial crown.
Liberation of Switzerland.
Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria.
The imperial crown lost once more.
Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for
his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of
Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his
death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor
and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum
of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events;
he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair,
for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt
to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf
had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose
Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his
adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign
of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very
ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the
throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died
out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a
battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even
unjustly--in Alsace and Switzerland--and it proved an
unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused
the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to
revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew
John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains
in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the
Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The
assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager
queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people
killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of
the present Switzerland had been originally included in the
Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together
with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and
ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless,
by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance.
Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce
and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far
in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all
the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When
Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried
to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic
mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and
Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together
at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian
bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if
tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the
insurrection."
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
"Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the
duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He
failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That
was Switzerland's field of Marathon. ... When Rudolf of
Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his
poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not
give their votes for his son Albert. ... Albert, however,
succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they
were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third
time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise
refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois,
brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on
the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule
over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who
became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were
poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of
enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf
failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by
victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and
Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because,
besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of
Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married
the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he
remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless
spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond
the Alps. ... He was seriously threatening Naples, when he
died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a
Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's
interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once:
Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor
Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by
the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into
his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at
the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were
on such good terms that both bore the title of King and
governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and
the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had
revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in
the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with
the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did
the same. ... While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip
the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other
hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile
auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former
hostility.
{201}
When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who
wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV.,
Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. . . . Tired of a crown
loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to
submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived
the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally
releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which
brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the
Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the
Diet, on the report of the electors. . . . The king of France
and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by
this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of
Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia
in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the
French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following
year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol
for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them.
The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363.
The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up,
as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III.,
king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it
to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps
poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then
became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."
V. Duruy, The History of the Middle Ages, book 9, chapter 30.
See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
Forged charters of Duke Rudolf.
The Privilegium Majus.
His assumption of the Archducal title.
Acquisition of Tyrol.
Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.
King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry,
at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret
Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and
Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this
means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this
scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian
princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an
understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was
arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male
heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol
that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the
Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche
had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to
assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the
exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the
house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the
Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with
the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep
possession of this part of her inheritance. ... Carinthia also
did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria.
Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband
(1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis
of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only
with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the
houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest..
. ... When ... Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he
consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria.
Albert did homage for it. ... According to the wish of their
father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the
eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name
of the others [1358--1365]. ... He was only 19 when he came to
the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of
the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance,
Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull
[see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure
either her territorial importance or a proper position for her
princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college
of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched
from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. ... These
grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards
Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV.
It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance
of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse
to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes,
religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended
that there were in existence a whole series of charters which
had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and
emperors, and which secured to their princes a position
entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to
these documents, and more especially the one called the
'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of
service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect
him; ... he was to appear at the diets with the title of
archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors.
... Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to
light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who
refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying
charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without
waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal
insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by
these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had
inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were
simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them,
and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally
led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the
ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses
of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each
guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in
case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the
estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A
similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and
thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the
first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these
long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to
his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son
Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time
declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol
should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did
so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there
received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. ...The acquisition
of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria
Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western
Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died
at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute
princess still survives among the Tyrolese."
L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, pages 143-148.
{202}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388.
Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.
SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516.
Contests for Hungary and Bohemia.
The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.
"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if
Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held
them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the
independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they
weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between
the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland
and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458].
United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for
a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary
until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes
until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the
hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who
won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George
Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias
Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary
(1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical
pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected
the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias
victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of
Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his
father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias
the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son,
Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time,
Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from
Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all
sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and
content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and
Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died
first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at
the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had
refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states
and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D.
1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief
defender, Hungary her conquests and her political
preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to
introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries.
... Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected
King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and
by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He
appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and
Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of
succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should
die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son
Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516
Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."
J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, chapter 4.
See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493.
The Imperial Crown lastingly regained.
The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.
"After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected
an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with
scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient
throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law
of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time
King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished
prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit
to the empire; but he died ... in the second year of his
reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks.
... In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new
council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work
of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But
this council soon became engaged in many perplexing
controversies with Pope Eugene IV. ... The Germans, for a
time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under
the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the
chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz
in the year 1439. ... Amongst the resolutions then adopted
were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges
of the pope. ... These and other decisions, calculated to give
important privileges and considerable independence to the
German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's
cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was
elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as
Frederick III. ... Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who
meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a
nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated
to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the
empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy--the Turks,
against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on
the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. ... They then
made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded
also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. ... The
Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II.,
Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir
to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as
king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the
Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private
nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and
thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from
holding possession of either of these countries. ... In
Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and
feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels.
... The emperor could not give any weight to public measures:
scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own
subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send
challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna
revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this
disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went
to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick,
together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years
of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of
Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself
at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster,
whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend
the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded.
{203}
...The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference
such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they
assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia,
was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set
the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between
him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to
resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna.
Albert died in the following year. ... In the Germanic empire,
the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his
hereditary lands. ... The feudal system raged under
Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even
by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic
sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the
bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave
of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most
important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union
which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the
foundation for the greatness of Austria. ... In the year 1486,
the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by
the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert,
called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the
emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a
changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a
remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire,
so that the profound contemplator of coming events might
easily see the dawn of a new era. ... These last years were
the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him
in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was
so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died
on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The
emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the
restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King
Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his
successor."
F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 14.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1468.
Invasion by George Podiebrad of Bohemia.
The crusade against him.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1471-1491.
Hungarian invasion and capture of Vienna.
Treaty of Presburg.
Succession to the throne of Hungary secured.
"George, King of Bohemia, expired in 1471; and the claims of
the Emperor and King of Hungary being equally disregarded, the
crown was conferred on Uladislaus, son of Casimir IV. King of
Poland, and grandson of Albert II. To this election Frederic
long persisted in withholding his assent; but at length he
determined to crush the claim of Matthias by formally
investing Uladislaus with the kingdom and electorate of
Bohemia, and the office of imperial cup-bearer. In revenge for
this affront, Matthias marched into Austria: took possession
of the fortresses of the Danube; and compelled the Emperor to
purchase a cessation of hostilities by undertaking to pay an
hundred thousand golden florins, one-half of which was
disbursed by the Austrian states at the appointed time. But as
the King of Hungary still delayed to yield up the captured
fortresses, Frederic refused all further payment; and the war
was again renewed. Matthias invaded and ravaged Austria; and
though he experienced formidable resistance from several
towns, his arms were crowned with success, and he became
master of Vienna and Neustadt. Driven from his capital the
terrified Emperor was reduced to the utmost distress, and
wandered from town to town and from convent to convent,
endeavouring to arouse the German States against the
Hungarians. Yet even in this exigency his good fortune did not
wholly forsake him; and he availed himself of a Diet at
Frankfort to procure the election of his son Maximilian as
King of the Romans. To this Diet, however, the King of Bohemia
received no summons, and therefore protested against the
validity of the election. A full apology and admission of his
right easily satisfied Uladislaus, and he consented to remit
the fine which the Golden Bull had fixed as the penalty of the
omission. The death of Matthias Corvinus in 1490, left the
throne of Hungary vacant, and the Hungarians, influenced by
their widowed queen, conferred the crown upon the King of
Bohemia, without listening to the pretensions of Maximilian.
That valorous prince, however, sword in hand, recovered his
Austrian dominions; and the rival kings concluded a severe
contest by the treaty of Presburg, by which Hungary was for
the present secured to Uladislaus; but on his death without
heirs was to vest in the descendants of the Emperor."
Sir R. Comyn, The History of the Western Empire,
chapter 28 (volume 2).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487, and 1487-1526.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.
Marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy.
His splendid dominion.
His joyous character.
His vigorous powers.
His ambitions and aims.
"Maximilian, who was as active and enterprising as his father
was indolent and timid, married at eighteen years of age, the
only daughter of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy."
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477
"She brought him Flanders, Franche-Comte, and all the Low
Countries. Louis XI., who disputed some of those territories,
and who, on the death of the duke, had seized Burgundy,
Picardy, Ponthieu, and Artois, as fiefs of France, which could
not be possessed by a woman, was defeated by Maximilian at
Guinegaste; and Charles VIII., who renewed the same claims,
was obliged to conclude a disadvantageous peace." Maximilian
succeeded to the imperial throne on the death of his father in
1493.
W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, letter 49 (volume 1).
"Between the Alps and the Bohemian frontier, the mark Austria
was first founded round and about the castles of Krems and
Melk. Since then, beginning first in the valley towards
Bavaria and Hungary, and coming to the House of Hapsburg, it
had extended across the whole of the northern slope of the
Alps until where the Slavish, Italian, and German tongues
part, and over to Alsace; thus becoming an archduchy from a
mark. On all sides the Archdukes had claims; on the German
side to Switzerland, on the Italian to the Venetian
possessions, and on the Slavish to Bohemia and Hungary. To
such a pitch of greatness had Maximilian by his marriage with
Maria of Burgundy brought the heritage received from Charles
the Bold. True to the Netherlanders' greeting, in the
inscription over their gates, 'Thou art our Duke, fight our
battle for us,' war was from the first his handicraft. He
adopted Charles the Bold's hostile attitude towards France; he
saved the greater part of his inheritance from the schemes of
Louis XI. Day and night it was his whole thought, to conquer
it entirely.
{204}
But after Maria of Burgundy's premature death, revolution
followed revolution, and his father Frederick being too old to
protect himself, it came about that in the year 1488 he was
ousted from Austria by the Hungarians, whilst his son was kept
a prisoner in Bruges by the citizens, and they had even to
fear the estrangement of the Tyrol. Yet they did not lose
courage. At this very time the father denoted with the vowels,
A. E. I. O. U. ('Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich
unterthan'--All the earth is subject to Austria), the extent
of his hopes. In the same year, his son negotiated for a
Spanish alliance. Their real strength lay in the imperial
dignity of Maximilian, which they had from the German Empire.
As soon as it began to bestir itself, Maximilian was set at
liberty; as soon as it supported him in the persons of only a
few princes of the Empire, he became lord in his Netherlands.
... Since then his plans were directed against Hungary and
Burgundy. In Hungary he could gain nothing except securing the
succession to his house. But never, frequently as he concluded
peace, did he give up His intentions upon Burgundy. ... Now
that he had allied himself with a Sforza, and had joined the
Liga, now that his father was dead, and the Empire was pledged
to follow him across the mountains, and now, too, that the
Italian complications were threatening Charles, he took fresh
hope, and in this hope he summoned a Diet at Worms. Maximilian
was a prince of whom, although many portraits have been drawn,
yet there is scarcely one that resembles another, so easily
and entirely did he suit himself to circumstances. ... His
soul is full of motion, of joy in things, and of plans. There
is scarcely anything that he is not capable of doing. In his
mines he is a good screener, in his armoury the best plater,
capable of instructing others in new inventions. With musket
in hand, he defends his best marksman, George Purkhard; with
heavy cannon, which he has shown how to cast, and has placed
on wheels, he comes as a rule nearest the mark. He commands
seven captains in their seven several tongues; he himself
chooses and mixes his food and medicines. In the open country,
he feels himself happiest. ... What really distinguishes his
public life is that presentiment of the future greatness of
his dynasty which he has inherited of his father, and the
restless striving to attain all that devolved upon him from
the House of Burgundy. All his policy and all his schemes were
concentrated, not upon his Empire, for the real needs of which
he evinced little real care, and not immediately upon the
welfare of his hereditary lands, but upon the realization of
that sole idea. Of it all his letters and speeches are full.
... In March, 1495, Maximilian came to the Diet at Worms. ...
At this Reichstag the King gained two momentous prospects. In
Wurtemberg there had sprung of two lines two counts of quite
opposite characters. ... With the elder, Maximilian now
entered into a compact. Wurtemberg was to be raised to a
dukedom--an elevation which excluded the female line from the
succession--and, in the event of the stock failing, was to be
a 'widow's portion' of the realm to the use of the Imperial
Chamber. Now as the sole hopes of this family centred in a
weakling of a boy, this arrangement held out to Maximilian and
his successors the prospect of acquiring a splendid country.
Yet this was the smaller of his two successes. The greater was
the espousal of his children, Philip and Margaret, with the
two children of Ferdinand the Catholic, Juana and Juan, which
was here settled. This opened to his house still greater
expectations,--it brought him at once into the most intimate
alliance with the Kings of Spain. These matters might
possibly, however, have been arranged elsewhere. What
Maximilian really wanted in the Reichstag at Worms was the
assistance of the Empire against the French with its
world-renowned and much-envied soldiery. For at this time in
all the wars of Europe, German auxiliaries were decisive. ...
If Maximilian had united the whole of this power in his hand,
neither Europe nor Asia would have been able to withstand him.
But God disposed that it should rather be employed in the
cause of freedom than oppression. What an Empire was that
which in spite of its vast strength allowed its Emperor to be
expelled from his heritage, and did not for a long time take
steps to bring him back again? If we examine the constitution
of the Empire, not as we should picture it to ourselves in
Henry III. 's time, but as it had at length become--the legal
independence of the several estates, the emptiness of the
imperial dignity, the electiveness of a head, that afterwards
exercised certain rights over the electors,--we are led to
inquire not so much into the causes of its disintegration, for
this concerns us little, as into the way in which it was held
together. What welded it together, and preserved it, would
(leaving tradition and the Pope out of the question) appear,
before all else, to have been the rights of individuals, the
unions of neighbours, and the social regulations which
universally obtained. Such were those rights and privileges
that not only protected the citizen, his guild, and his
quarter of the town against his neighbours and more powerful
men than himself, but which also endowed him with an inner
independence. ... Next, the unions of neighbours. These were
not only leagues of cities and peasantries, expanded from
ancient fraternities--for who can tell the origin of the
Hansa, or the earliest treaty between Uri and Schwyz?--into
large associations, or of knights, who strengthened a really
insignificant power by confederations of neighbours, but also
of the princes, who were bound together by joint inheritances,
mutual expectancies, and the ties of blood, which in some
cases were very close. This ramification, dependent upon a
supreme power and confirmed by it, bound neighbour to
neighbour; and, whilst securing to each his privilege and his
liberty, blended together all countries of Germany in legal
bonds of union. But it is only in the social regulations that
the unity was really perceivable. Only as long as the Empire
was an actual reality, could the supreme power of the
Electors, each with his own special rights, be maintained;
only so long could dukes and princes, bishops and abbots hold
their neighbours in due respect, and through court offices or
hereditary services, through fiefs and the dignity of their
independent position give their vassals a peculiar position to
the whole. Only so long could the cities enjoying
immediateness under the Empire, carefully divided into free
and imperial cities, be not merely protected, but also assured
of a participation in the government of the whole. Under this
sanctified and traditional system of suzerainty and vassalage
all were happy and contented, and bore a love to it such as is
cherished towards a native town or a father's house. For some
time past, the House of Austria had enjoyed the foremost
position. It also had a union, and, moreover, a great faction
on its side. The union was the Suabian League. Old Suabia was
divided into three leagues--the league of the peasantry (the
origin of Switzerland); the league of the knights in the Black
Forest, on the Kocher, the Neckar, and the Danube; and the
league of the cities. The peasantry were from the first
hostile to Austria. The Emperor Frederick brought it to pass
that the cities and knights, that had from time out of mind
lived in feud, bound themselves together with several princes,
and formed, under his protection, the league of the land of
Suabia. But the party was scattered throughout the whole
Empire."
L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
book 1, chapter 3.
{205}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1493-1519.
The Imperial reign of Maximilian.
Formation of the Circle of Austria.
The Aulic Council.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1499.
The Swabian War with the Swiss Confederacy and the Graubunden,
or Grey Leagues (Grisons).
Practical independence of both acquired.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
Extraordinary aggrandizement of the House of Austria by its marriages.
The Heritage of Charles V.
His cession of the German inheritance to Ferdinand.
The division of the House into Spanish and German branches.
Acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia.
In 1496, Philip the Fair, son of Maximilian, Archduke and
Emperor, by his marriage with Mary of Burgundy, "espoused the
Infanta of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand [of Aragon] and
Isabella of Castile. They had two sons, Charles and Ferdinand,
the former of whom, known in history by the name of Charles
V., inherited the Low Countries in right of his father, Philip
(1506). On the death of Ferdinand, his maternal grandfather
(1516), he became heir to the whole Spanish succession, which
comprehended the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and
Sardinia, together with Spanish America. To these vast
possessions were added his patrimonial dominions in Austria,
which were transmitted to him by his paternal grandfather, the
Emperor Maximilian I. About the same time (1519), the Imperial
dignity was conferred on this prince by the electors [see
GERMANY: A. D. 1519]; so that Europe had not seen, since the
time of Charlemagne, a monarchy so powerful as that of Charles
V. This Emperor concluded a treaty with his brother Ferdinand;
by which he ceded to him all his hereditary possessions in
Germany. The two brothers thus became the founders of the two
principal branches of the House of Austria, viz., that of
Spain, which began with Charles V. (called Charles I. of
Spain), and ended with Charles II. (1700); and that of
Germany, of which Ferdinand I. was the ancestor, and which
became extinct in the male line in the Emperor Charles VI.
(1740). These two branches, closely allied to each other,
acted in concert for the advancement of their reciprocal
interests; moreover they gained each their own separate
advantages by the marriage connexions which they formed.
Ferdinand I. of the German line married Anne (1521), sister of
Louis King of Hungary and Bohemia, who having been slain by
the Turks at the battle of Mohacs (1526), these two kingdoms
devolved to Ferdinand of the House of Austria. Finally, the
marriage which Charles V. contracted with the Infant Isabella,
daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, procured Philip II. of
Spain, the son of that marriage, the whole Portuguese
monarchy, to which he succeeded on the death of Henry, called
the Cardinal (1580). So vast an aggrandisement of power
alarmed the Sovereigns of Europe."
C. W. Koch, The Revolutions of Europe, period 6.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 25 and 27 (volume 1).
W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 1.
See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519.
Death of Maximilian.
Election of Charles V., "Emperor of the Romans."
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.
The imperial reign of Charles V.
The objects of his policy.
His conflict with the Reformation and with France.
"Charles V. did not receive from nature all the gifts nor all
the charms she can bestow, nor did experience give him every
talent; but he was equal to the part he had to play in the
world. He was sufficiently great to keep his many-jewelled
diadem. ... His ambition was cold and wise. The scope of his
ideas, which are not quite easy to divine, was vast enough to
control a state composed of divers and distant portions, so as
to make it always very difficult to amalgamate his armies, and
to supply them with food, or to procure money. Indeed its very
existence would have been exposed to permanent danger from
powerful coalitions, had Francis I. known how to place its
most vulnerable points under a united pressure from the armies
of France, of England, of Venice, and of the Ottoman Empire.
Charles V. attained his first object when he prevented the
French monarch from taking possession of the inheritance of
the house of Anjou, at Naples, and of that of the Viscontis at
Milan. He was more successful in stopping the march of Solyman
into Austria than in checking the spread of the Reformation in
Germany. ... Charles V. had four objects very much at heart:
he wished to be the master in Italy, to check the progress of
the Ottoman power in the west of Europe, to conquer the King
of France, and to govern the Germanic body by dividing it, and
by making the Reformation a religious pretext for oppressing
the political defenders of that belief. In three out of four
of these objects he succeeded. Germany alone was not
conquered: if she was beaten in battle, neither any political
triumph nor any religious results ensued. In Germany, Charles
V. began his work too late, and acted too slowly; he undertook
to subdue it at a time when the abettors of the Reformation
had grown strong, when he himself was growing weaker. ... Like
many other brilliant careers, the career of Charles V. was
more successful and more striking at the commencement and the
middle than at the end, of its course. At Madrid, at Cambrai,
at Nice, he made his rival bow down his head. At Crespy he
again forced him to obey his will, but as he had completely
made up his mind to have peace, Charles dictated it, in some
manner, to his own detriment.
{206}
At Passau he had to yield to the terms of his enemy--of an
enemy whom Charles V. encountered in his old age, and when his
powers had decayed. Although it may be said that the extent
and the power of the sovereignty which Charles V. left to his
successor at his death were not diminished, still his armies
were weakened, his finances were exhausted, and the country
was weary of the tyranny of the imperial lieutenants. The
supremacy of the empire in Germany, for which he had struggled
so much, was as little established at the end as at the
beginning of his reign; religious unity was solemnly destroyed
by the 'Recess' of Augsburg. But that which marks the position
of Charles V. as the representative man of his epoch, and as
the founder of the policy of modern times, is that, wherever
he was victorious, the effect of his success was to crush the
last efforts of the spirit of the middle ages, and of the
independence of nations. In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, and
in the Low Countries, his triumphs were so much gain to the
cause of absolute monarchy and so much loss to the liberty
derived from the old state of society. Whatever was the
character of liberty in the middle ages--whether it were
contested or incomplete, or a mockery--it played a greater
part than in the four succeeding centuries. Charles V. was
assuredly one of those who contributed the most to found and
consolidate the political system of modern governments. His
history has an aspect of grandeur. Had Francis I. been as
sagacious in the closet as he was bold in the field, by a
vigorous alliance with England, with Protestant Germany, and
with some of the republics of Italy, he might perhaps have
balanced and controlled the power of Charles V. But the French
monarch did not possess the foresight and the solid
understanding necessary to pursue such a policy with success.
His rival, therefore, occupies the first place in the
historical picture of the epoch. Charles V. had the sentiment
of his position and of the part he had to play."
J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the 15th,
16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 190-194.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1519 to 1152-1561,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, to 1547-1559.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1525-1527.
Successful Contest for the Hungarian and Bohemian Crowns.
In Hungary, "under King Matthias the house of Zapolya, so
called from a Slavonic village near Poschega, whence it
originated, rose to peculiar eminence. To this house, in
particular, King Wladislas had owed his accession to the
throne; whence, however, it thought itself entitled to claim a
share in the sovereign power, and even a sort of prospective
right to the throne. Its members were the wealthiest of all
the magnates; they possessed seventy-two castles. ... It is
said that a prophecy early promised the crown to the young
John Zapolya. Possessed of all the power conferred by his rich
inheritance, Count of Zips, and Woiwode of Transylvania, he
soon collected a strong party around him. It was he who mainly
persuaded the Hungarians, in the year 1505, to exclude all
foreigners from the throne by a formal decree; which, though
they were not always able to maintain in force, they could
never be induced absolutely to revoke. In the year 1514 the
Woiwode succeeded in putting down an exceedingly formidable
insurrection of the peasants with his own forces; a service
which the lesser nobility prized the more highly, because it
enabled them to reduce the peasantry to a still harder state
of servitude. His wish was, on the death of Wladislas, to
become Gubernator of the kingdom, to marry the deceased king's
daughter Anne, and then to await the course of events. But he
was here encountered by the policy of Maximilian. Anne was
married to the Archduke Ferdinand; Zapolya was excluded from
the administration of the kingdom; even the vacant Palatinate
was refused him and given to his old rival Stephen Bathory. He
was highly incensed. ... But it was not till the year 1525
that Zapolya got the upper hand at the Rakosch. ... No one
entertained a doubt that he aimed at the throne. ... But
before anything was accomplished--on the contrary, just as
these party conflicts had thrown the country into the utmost
confusion, the mighty enemy, Soliman, appeared on the
frontiers of Hungary, determined to put an end to the anarchy.
... In his prison at Madrid, Francis I. had found means to
entreat the assistance of Soliman; urging that it well
beseemed a great emperor to succour the oppressed. Plans were
laid at Constantinople, according to which the two sovereigns
were to attack Spain with a combined fleet, and to send armies
to invade Hungary and the north of Italy. Soliman, without any
formal treaty, was by his position an ally of the Ligue, as
the king of Hungary was, of the emperor. On the 23d of April,
1526, Soliman, after visiting the groves of his forefathers
and of the old Moslem martyrs, marched out of Constantinople
with a mighty host, consisting of about a hundred thousand
men, and incessantly strengthened by fresh recruits on its
road. ... What power had Hungary, in the condition we have
just described, of resisting such an attack? ... The young
king took the field with a following of not more than three
thousand men. ... He proceeded to the fatal plain of Mohaez,
fully resolved with his small band to await in the open field
the overwhelming force of the enemy. ... Personal valour could
avail nothing. The Hungarians were immediately thrown into
disorder, their best men fell, the others took to flight. The
young king was compelled to flee. It was not even granted him
to die in the field of battle; a far more miserable end a
waited him. Mounted behind a Silesian soldier, who served him
as a guide, he had already been carried across the dark waters
that divide the plain; his horse was already climbing the
bank, when he slipped, fell back, and buried himself and his
rider in the morass. This rendered the defeat decisive. ...
Soliman had gained one of those victories which decide the
fate of nations during long epochs. ... That two thrones, the
succession to which was not entirely free from doubt, had thus
been left vacant, was an event that necessarily caused a great
agitation throughout Christendom. It was still a question
whether such a European power as Austria would continue to
exist;--a question which it is only necessary to state, in
order to be aware of its vast importance to the fate of
mankind at large, and of Germany in particular. ... The claims
of Ferdinand to both crowns, unquestionable as they might be
in reference to the treaties with the reigning houses, were
opposed in the nations themselves, by the right of ejection
and the authority of considerable rivals.
{207}
In Hungary, as soon as the Turks had retired, John Zapolya
appeared with the fine army which he had kept back from the
conflict; the fall of the king was at the same time the fall
of his adversaries. ... Even in Tokay, however, John Zapolya
was saluted as king. Meanwhile, the dukes of Bavaria conceived
the design of getting possession of the throne of Bohemia. ...
Nor was it in the two kingdoms alone that these pretenders had
a considerable party. The state of politics in Europe was such
as to insure them powerful supporters abroad. In the first
place, Francis I. was intimately connected with Zapolya: in a
short time a delegate from the pope was at his side, and the
Germans in Rome maintained that Clement assisted the faction
of the Woiwode with money. Zapolya sent an agent to Venice
with a direct request to be admitted a member of the Ligue of
Cognac. In Bohemia, too, the French had long had devoted
partisans. ... The consequences that must have resulted, had
this scheme succeeded, are so incalculable, that it is not too
much to say they would have completely changed the political
history of Europe. The power of Bavaria would have outweighed
that of Austria in both German and Slavonian countries, and
Zapolya, thus supported, would have been able to maintain his
station; the Ligue, and with it high ultra-montane opinions
would have held the ascendency in eastern Europe. Never was
there a project more pregnant with danger to the growing power
of the house of Austria. Ferdinand behaved with all the
prudence and energy which that house has so often displayed in
difficult emergencies. For the present, the all-important
object was the crown of Bohemia. ... All his measures were
taken with such skill and prudence, that on the day of
election, though the Bavarian agent had, up to the last
moment, not the slightest doubt of the success of his
negotiations, an overwhelming majority in the three estates
elected Ferdinand to the throne of Bohemia. This took place on
the 23d October, 1526. ... On his brother's birth-day, the
24th of February, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Prague. ....
The affairs of Hungary were not so easily or so peacefully
settled. ... At first, when Zapolya came forward, full armed
and powerful out of the general desolation, he had the
uncontested superiority. The capital of the kingdom sought his
protection, after which he marched to Stuhlweissenburg, where
his partisans bore down all attempts at opposition: he was
elected and crowned (11th of November, 1526); in Croatia, too,
he was acknowledged king at a diet; he filled all the numerous
places, temporal and spiritual, left vacant by the disaster of
Mohaez, with his friends. ... [But] the Germans advanced
without interruption; and as soon as it appeared possible that
Ferdinand might be successful, Zapolya's followers began to
desert him. ... Never did the German troops display more
bravery and constancy. They had often neither meat nor bread,
and were obliged to live on such fruits as they found in the
gardens: the inhabitants were wavering and uncertain--they
submitted, and then revolted again to the enemy; Zapolya's
troops, aided by their knowledge of the ground, made several
very formidable attacks by night; but the Germans evinced, in
the moment of danger, the skill and determination of a Roman
legion: they showed, too, a noble constancy under difficulties
and privations. At Tokay they defeated Zapolya and compelled
him to quit Hungary. ... On the 3rd November, 1527, Ferdinand
was crowned in Stuhlweissenburg: only five of the magnates of
the kingdom adhered to Zapolya. The victory appeared complete.
Ferdinand, however, distinctly felt that this appearance was
delusive. ... In Bohemia, too, his power was far from secure.
His Bavarian neighbours had not relinquished the hope of
driving him from the throne at the first general turn of
affairs. The Ottomans, meanwhile, acting upon the persuasion
that every land in which the head of their chief had rested
belonged of right to them, were preparing to return to
Hungary; either to take possession of it themselves, or at
first, as was their custom, to bestow it on a native
ruler--Zapolya, who now eagerly sought an alliance with
them--as their vassal."
L. Von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1564-1618.
The tolerance of Maximilian II.
The bigotry and tyranny of Rodolph and Ferdinand II.
Prelude to the Thirty Years War.
"There is no period connected with these religious wars that
deserves more to be studied than these reigns of Ferdinand I.,
Maximilian [the Second], and those of his successors who preceded
the thirty years' war. We have no sovereign who exhibited that
exercise of moderation and good sense which a philosopher
would require, but Maximilian; and he was immediately followed
by princes of a different complexion. ... Nothing could be
more complete than the difficulty of toleration at the time
when Maximilian reigned; and if a mild policy could be
attended with favourable effects in his age and nation, there
can be little fear of the experiment at any other period. No
party or person in the state was then disposed to tolerate his
neighbour from any sense of the justice of such forbearance,
but from motives of temporal policy alone. The Lutherans, it
will be seen, could not bear that the Calvinists should have
the same religious privileges with themselves. The Calvinists
were equally opinionated and unjust; and Maximilian himself
was probably tolerant and wise, chiefly because he was in his
real opinions a Lutheran, and in outward profession, as the
head of the empire, a Roman Catholic. For twelve years, the
whole of his reign, he preserved the religious peace of the
community, without destroying the religious freedom of the
human mind. He supported the Roman Catholics, as the
predominant party, in all their rights, possessions, and
privileges; but he protected the Protestants in every exercise
of their religion which was then practicable. In other words,
he was as tolerant and just as the temper of society then
admitted, and more so than the state of things would have
suggested. ... The merit of Maximilian was but too apparent
the moment that his son Rodolph was called upon to supply his
place. ... He had always left the education of his son and
successor too much to the discretion of his bigoted consort.
Rodolph, his son, was therefore as ignorant and furious on his
part as were the Protestants on theirs; he had immediate
recourse to the usual expedients--force, and the execution of
the laws to the very letter. ... After Rodolph comes Matthias,
and, unhappily for all Europe, Bohemia and the empire fell
afterwards under the management of Ferdinand II. Of the
different Austrian princes, it is the reign of Ferdinand II.
that is more particularly to be considered. Such was the
arbitrary nature of his government over his subjects in
Bohemia, that they revolted. They elected for their king the
young Elector Palatine, hoping thus to extricate themselves
from the bigotry and tyranny of Ferdinand. This crown so
offered was accepted; and, in the event, the cause of the
Bohemians became the cause of the Reformation in Germany, and
the Elector Palatine the hero of that cause. It is this which
gives the great interest to this reign of Ferdinand II., to
these concerns of his subjects in Bohemia, and to the
character of this Elector Palatine. For all these events and
circumstances led to the thirty years' war."
W. Smyth, Lectures on Modern History, volume I, lecture 13.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
{208}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
Struggles of the Hapsburg House in Hungary and Transylvania to
establish rights of sovereignty.
Wars with the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604, and 1606-1660.
----------AUSTRIA: End----------
Seventeenth Century: Second Half.
Contemporaneous Events.
A.D.
1651.
Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;
Cromwell's victory at Worcester; complete conquest of
Scotland.
1652.
Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.
End of the Fronde.
Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.
1653.
Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment of
the Protectorate in England.
Adoption of the Instrument of Government.
Return of Mazarin to power in France.
The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.
1654.
Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,
under Cromwell.
Peace between the English and Dutch.
Conquest of Nova Scotia, by the New England colonists.
1655.
Alliance of England and France against Spain.
English conquest of Jamaica.
1656.
Beginning of the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.
1658.
Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and possession given
by the French to the English.
Death of Cromwell and succession of his son Richard as
Protector.
1659.
Meeting of a new Parliament in England;
its dissolution;
resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation
of a provisional government by the Army.
1660.
March of the English army under Monk from Scotland to
London.
Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of the
monarchy, in the person of Charles II.
1661.
Restoration of the Church of England and ejection of 2,000
nonconformist ministers.
Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.
Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.
1662.
Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.
Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of
the Covenanters.
1664.
Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the
English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the
duke of York.
Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret.
1665.
Outbreak of the great Plague in London.
Formal declarations of war between the English and the
Dutch.
1666.
The great fire in London.
Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and
defeat of the former.
1667.
Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames.
Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland, France
and Denmark.
War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights, in
the Spanish Netherlands.
1668.
Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against
France.
1669.
First exploring journey of La Salle from the St. Lawrence
to the West.
1670.
Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,
betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess
himself a Catholic,
1672.
Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.
Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the Prince
of Orange, and murder of the De Witts.
1673.
Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.
1674.
Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch
and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.
1675. War with the Indians in New England, known
as King Philip's War.
1678.
Pretended Popish Plot in England.
Treaties of Nimeguen.
1679.
Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.
Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.
Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.
Defeat of Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge.
1680.
First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.
1681.
Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.
Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in
France.
Grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to William Penn.
1682.
Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.
1683.
The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and
Algernon Sidney, in England.
Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;
their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by
John Sobieski, king of Poland.
Establishment of a penny post in London.
1685.
Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession of his
brother James II., an avowed Catholic.
Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.
1686.
Consolidation of New England under a royal
governor-general.
League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France.
1688.
Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England, and
imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for refusing to
publish it.
Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the
English crown.
Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and flight of
James.
1689.
Completion of the English Revolution.
Settlement of the crown on William and Mary.
Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights.
Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island;
siege and successful defense of Londonderry.
1690.
The first congress of the American colonies.
Battle of the Boyne in Ireland.
1692.
The Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.
Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.
1695.
Passage of the first of the Penal Laws, oppressing
Catholics in Ireland.
1697.
Peace of Ryswick.
Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.
1699.
Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland, Venice,
and the Emperor.
1700.
Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.
First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden.
Seventeenth Century: First Half.
Contemporaneous Events.
A.D.
1602.
Chartering of Dutch East India Company.
First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."
1603.
Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of James I.
1600.
Gunpowder plot of English Catholics.
Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," and part
1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."
1606.
Charter granted to the London and Plymouth companies, for
American colonization.
Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at
Scrooby, England.
1607.
Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
Migration of Scrooby Independents to Holland.
1609.
Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.
Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery of
Jupiter's moons.
1610.
Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of Louis XIII.
1611.
Publication in England of the King James or Authorized
version of the Bible.
1614.
Last meeting of the States General of France before the
Revolution.
1610.
Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known
weekly newspaper.
1616.
Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.
Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.
1618.
Rising of Protestants in Bohemia, beginning the Thirty
Years War.
1619.
Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.
Introduction of slavery in Virginia.
1620.
Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle
of the White Mountain.
Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.
Migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America.
1621.
Formation of the Dutch West India Company.
The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.
1622.
Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in England
"The Weekly Newes."
1624.
Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.
1625.
Death of James I., of England, and accession of Charles I.;
beginning of the English struggle between King and
Parliament.
Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of
the Emperor against the Protestants.
1627.
Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.
Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.
1628.
Passage by the English Parliament of the act called the
Petition of Right.
Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.
Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.
Publication of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the
blood.
1629.
Tumult in the English Parliament, dissolution by the king
and arrest of Eliot and others.
1630.
Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,
as the champion of Protestantism.
Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New
England, and founding of Boston.
The Day of the Dupes in France.
1631.
Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial
general, Tilly.
Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig, by Gustavus
Adolphus.
1632.
Defeat and death of Tilly.
Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen.
Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., of England, granting
him the territory in America called Maryland.
First Jesuit mission to Canada.
1634.
Assassination of Wallenstein.
Levy of Ship-money in England.
1635.
First settlements in the Connecticut valley.
1636.
Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his
founding of Providence.
1637.
The Pequot War in New England.
Introduction of Laud's Service-book in Scotland; tumult in
St. Giles' church.
1638.
Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.
Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;
organization of the Tables;
signing of the National Covenant.
1639.
The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.
1640.
Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.
Recovery of independence by Portugal.
1641.
Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption of the
Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.
Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres of
Protestants.
1642.
King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the Five
Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.
Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.
Death of Cardinal Richelieu.
1643.
Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant between the
Scotch and English nations.
Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.
Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.
1644.
Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, in the
English civil war.
1645.
Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English
Parliamentary army.
His victory at Naseby.
Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.
1646.
Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.
Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.
1647.
Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, and
his seizure by the Army.
1648.
The second Civil War in England.
Cromwell's victory at Preston.
Treaty of Newport with the king.
Grand Army Remonstrance, and Pride's Purge of Parliament.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Peace of Westphalia; cession of Alsace to France.
1649.
Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England, and
establishment of the Common-wealth.
Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.
First civil war of the Fronde in France.
1650.
Charles II. in Scotland.
War between the English and the Scotch.
Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.
The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.
-----End "Contemporaneous Events"-----
AUSTRIA: A. D, 1618-1648.
The Thirty Years War.
The Peace of Westphalia.
"The thirty years' war made Germany the centre-point of
European politics. ... No one at its commencement could have
foreseen the duration and extent. But the train of war was
everywhere laid, and required only the match to set it going;
more than one war was joined to it, and swallowed up in it;
and the melancholy truth, that war feeds itself, was never
more clearly displayed. ... Though the war, which first broke
out in Bohemia, concerned only the house of Austria, yet by
its originating in religious disputes, by its peculiar
character as a religious war, and by the measures adopted both
by the insurgents and the emperor, it acquired such an extent,
that even the quelling of the insurrection was insufficient to
put a stop to it. ... Though the Bohemian war was apparently
terminated, yet the flame had communicated to Germany and
Hungary, and new fuel was added by the act of proscription
promulgated against the elector Frederic and his adherents.
From this the war derived that revolutionary character, which
was henceforward peculiar to it; it was a step that could not
but lead to further results, for the question of the relations
between the emperor and his states, was in a fair way of being
practically considered. New and bolder projects were also
formed in Vienna and Madrid, where it was resolved to renew
the war with the Netherlands. Under the present circumstances,
the suppression of the Protestant religion and the overthrow
of German and Dutch liberty appeared inseparable; while the
success of the imperial arms, supported as they were by the
league and the co-operation of the Spaniards, gave just
grounds for hope. ... By the carrying of the war into Lower
Saxony, the principal scat of the Protestant religion in
Germany (the states of which had appointed Christian IV. of
Denmark, as duke of Holstein, head of their confederacy), the
northern states had already, though without any beneficial
result, been involved in the strife, and the Danish war had
broken out. But the elevation of Albert of Wallenstein to the
dignity of duke of Friedland and imperial general over the
army raised by himself, was of considerably more importance,
as it affected the whole course and character of the war. From
this time the war was completely and truly revolutionary. The
peculiar situation of the general, the manner of the formation
as well as the maintenance of his army, could not fail to make
it such. ... The distinguished success of the imperial arms in
the north of Germany unveiled the daring schemes of
Wallenstein. He did not come forward as conqueror alone, but,
by the investiture of Mecklenburg as a state of the empire, as
a ruling prince. ... But the elevation and conduct of this
novus homo, exasperated and annoyed the Catholic no less than
the Protestant states, especially the league and its chief;
all implored peace, and Wallenstein's discharge. Thus, at the
diet of the electors at Augsburg, the emperor was reduced to
the alternative of resigning him or his allies: He chose the
former. Wallenstein was dismissed, the majority of his army
disbanded, and Tilly nominated commander-in-chief of the
forces of the emperor and the league. ... On the side of the
emperor sufficient care was taken to prolong the war. The
refusal to restore the unfortunate Frederic, and even the sale
of his upper Palatine to Bavaria, must with justice have
excited the apprehensions of the other princes. But when the
Jesuits finally succeeded, not only in extorting the edict of
restitution, but also in causing it to be enforced in the most
odious manner, the Catholic states themselves saw with regret
that peace could no longer exist. ... The greater the success
that attended the house of Austria, the more actively foreign
policy laboured to counteract it. England had taken an
interest in the fate of Frederic V. from the first, though
this interest was evinced by little beyond fruitless
negotiations. Denmark became engaged in the quarrel mostly
through the influence of this power and Holland. Richelieu,
from the time he became prime minister of France, had exerted
himself in opposing Austria and Spain. He found employment for
Spain in the contests respecting Veltelin, and for Austria
soon after, by the war of Mantua. Willingly would he have
detached the German league from the interest of the emperor;
and though he failed in this, he procured the fall of
Wallenstein. ... Much more important, however, was Richelieu's
influence on the war, by the essential share he had in gaining
Gustavus Adolphus' active participation in it. ... The
nineteen years of his [Gustavus Adolphus'] reign which had
already elapsed, together with the Polish war, which lasted
nearly that time, had taught the world but little of the real
worth of this great and talented hero. The decisive
superiority of Protestantism in Germany, under his guidance,
soon created a more just knowledge, and at the same time
showed the advantages which must result to a victorious
supporter of that cause. ... The battle at Leipzig was
decisive for Gustavus Adolphus and his party, almost beyond
expectation. The league fell asunder; and in a short time he
was master of the countries from the Baltic to Bavaria, and
from the Rhine to Bohemia. ... But the misfortunes and death
of Tilly brought Wallenstein again on the stage as absolute
commander-in-chief, bent on plans not a whit less extensive
than those he had before formed. No period of the war gave
promise of such great and rapid successes or reverses as the
present, for both leaders were determined to effect them; but
the victory of Lutzen, while it cost Gustavus his life,
prepared the fall of Wallenstein.
{209}
... Though the fall of Gustavus Adolphus frustrated his own
private views, it did not those of his party. ... The school
of Gustavus produced a number of men, great in the cabinet and
in the field; yet it was hard, even for an Oxensteirn, to
preserve the importance of Sweden unimpaired; and it was but
partially done by the alliance of· Heilbronn. ... If the
forces of Sweden overrun almost every part of Germany in the
following months, under the guidance of the pupils of the
king, Bernard of Weimar and Gustavus Horn, we must apparently
attribute it to Wallenstein's intentional inactivity in
Bohemia. The distrust of him increased in Vienna the more, as
he took but little trouble to diminish it; and though his fall
was not sufficient to atone for treachery, if proved, it was
for his equivocal character and imprudence. His death probably
saved Germany from a catastrophe. ... A great change took
place upon the death of Wallenstein; as a prince of the blood,
Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, obtained the command.
Thus an end was put to plans of revolutions from this quarter.
But in the same year the battle of Nordlingen gave to the
imperial arms a sudden preponderance, such as it had never
before acquired. The separate peace of Saxony with the emperor
at Prague, and soon after an alliance, were its consequences;
Sweden driven back to Pomerania, seemed unable of herself,
during the two following years, to maintain her ground in
Germany: the victory of Wittstock turned the scale in her
favour. ... The war was prolonged and greatly extended by the
active share taken in it by France: first against Spain, and
soon against Austria. ... The German war, after the treaty
with Bernhard of Weimar, was mainly carried on by France, by
the arming of Germans against Germans. But the pupil of
Gustavus Adolphus preferred to fight for himself rather than
others, and his early death was almost as much coveted by
France as by Austria. The success of the Swedish arms revived
under Baner. ... At the general diet, which was at last
convened, the emperor yielded to a general amnesty, or at
least what was so designated. But when at the meeting of the
ambassadors of the leading powers at Hamburg, the
preliminaries were signed, and the time and place of the
congress of peace fixed, it was deferred after Richelieu's
death, (who was succeeded by Mazarin), by the war, which both
parties continued, in the hope of securing better conditions
by victory. A new war broke out in the north between Sweden
and Denmark, and when at last the congress of peace was opened
at Munster and Osnabruck, the negotiations dragged on for
three years. ... The German peace was negotiated at Munster
between the emperor and France, and at Osnabruck between the
emperor and Sweden; but both treaties, according to express
agreement, Oct. 24, 1648, were to be considered as one, under
the title of the Westphalian."
A. H. L. Heeren, A Manual of the History of the
Political System of Europe and its Colonies, pages 91-99.
"The Peace of Westphalia has met manifold hostile comments,
not only in earlier, but also in later, times. German patriots
complained that by it the unity of the Empire was rent; and
indeed the connection of the States, which even before was
loose, was relaxed to the extreme. This was, however, an evil
which could not be avoided, and it had to be accepted in order
to prevent the French and Swedes from using their opportunity
for the further enslavement of the land. ... The religious
parties also made objections to the peace. The strict
Catholics condemned it as a work of inexcusable and arbitrary
injustice. ... The dissatisfaction of the Protestants was
chiefly with the recognition of the Ecclesiastical
Reservation. They complained also that their brethren in the
faith were not allowed the free exercise of their religion in
Austria. Their hostility was limited to theoretical
discussions, which soon ceased when Louis XIV. took advantage
of the preponderance which he had won to make outrageous
assaults upon Germany, and even the Protestants were compelled
to acknowledge the Emperor as the real defender of German
independence."
A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War,
volume 2, chapter 10, section 4.
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, to 1648;
FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626; and
ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1621.
Formal establishment of the right of primogeniture in the
Archducal Family.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1624-1626.
Hostile combinations of Richelieu.
The Valtelline war in Northern Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with France over the succession to the Duchy of Mantua.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
Renewed war with the Turks.
Help from France.
Battle and victory of St. Gothard.
Twenty years truce.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1668-1683.
Increased oppression and religious persecution in Hungary.
Revolt of Tekeli.
The Turks again called in.
Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714.
The wars with Louis XIV. of France: War of the Grand Alliance.
Peace of Ryswick.
"The leading principle of the reign [in France] of Louis XIV.
... is the principle of war with the dynasty of Charles
V.--the elder branch of which reigned in Spain, while the
descendants of the younger branch occupied the imperial throne
of Germany. ... At the death of Mazarin, or to speak more
correctly, immediately after the death of Philip IV., ... the
early ambition of Louis XIV. sought to prevent the junior
branch of the Austrian dynasty from succeeding to the
inheritance of the elder branch. He had no desire to see
reconstituted under the imperial sceptre of Germany the
monarchy which Charles V. had at one time wished to transmit
entire to his son, but which, worn out and weakened, he
subsequently allowed without regret to be divided between his
son and his brother. Before making war upon Austria, Louis
XIV. cast his eyes upon a portion of the territory belonging
to Spain, and the expedition against Holland, begun in 1672
[see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678],
for the purpose of absorbing the Spanish provinces by
overwhelming them, opened the series of his vast enterprises.
His first great war was, historically speaking, his first
great fault. He failed in his object: for at the end of six
campaigns, during which the French armies obtained great and
deserved success, Holland remained unconquered.
{210}
Thus was Europe warned that the lust of conquest of a young
monarch, who did not himself possess military genius, but who
found in his generals the resources and ability in which he
was himself deficient, would soon threaten her independence.
Condé and Turenne, after having been rebellious subjects under
the Regency, were about to become the first and the most
illustrious lieutenants of Louis XIV. Europe, however, though
warned, was not immediately ready to defend herself. It was
from Austria, more directly exposed to the dangers of the
great war now commencing, that the first systematic resistance
ought to have come. But Austria was not prepared to play such
a part; and the Emperor Leopold possessed neither the genius
nor the wish for it. He was, in fact, nothing more than the
nominal head of Germany. ... Such was the state of affairs in
Europe when William of Orange first made his appearance on the
stage. ... The old question of supremacy, which Louis XIV.
wished to fight out as a duel with the House of Austria, was
now about to change its aspect, and, owing to the presence of
an unexpected genius, to bring into the quarrel other powers
besides the two original competitors. The foe of Louis XIV.
ought by rights to have been born on the banks of the Danube,
and not on the shores of the North Sea. In fact, it was
Austria that at that moment most needed a man of genius,
either on the throne or at the head of affairs. The events of
the century would, in this case, doubtless have followed a
different course: the war would have been less general, and
the maritime nations would not have been involved in it to the
same degree. ... The treaties of peace would have been signed
in some small place in France or Germany, and not in two towns
and a village in Holland, such as Nimeguen, Ryswick, and
Utrecht. . . . William of Orange found himself in a position
soon to form the Triple Alliance which the very policy of
Louis XIV. suggested. For France to attack Holland, when her
object was eventually to reach Austria, and keep her out of
the Spanish succession, was to make enemies at one and the
same time of Spain, of Austria, and of Holland. But if it
afterwards required considerable efforts on the part of
William of Orange to maintain this alliance, it demanded still
more energy to extend it. It formed part of the Stadtholder's
ulterior plans to combine the union between himself and the
two branches of the Austrian family, with the old
Anglo-Swedish Triple Alliance, which had just been dissolved
under the strong pressure brought to bear on it by Louis XIV.
... Louis XIV., whose finances were exhausted, was very soon
anxious to make peace, even on the morrow of his most
brilliant victories; whilst William of Orange, beaten and
retreating, ardently desired the continuance of the war. ...
The Peace of Nimeguen was at last signed, and by it were
secured to Louis XIV. Franche-Comté, and some important places
in the Spanish Low Countries on his northern frontier [see
NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF]. This was the culminating point of the
reign of Louis XIV. Although the coalition had prevented him
from attaining the full object of his designs against the
House of Austria, which had been to absorb by conquest so much
of the territory belonging to Spain as would secure him
against the effect of a will preserving the whole inheritance
intact in the family, yet his armies had been constantly
successful, and many of his opponents were evidently tired of
the struggle. ... Some years passed thus, with the appearance
of calm. Europe was conquered; and when peace was broken,
because, as was said, the Treaty of Nimeguen was not duly
executed, the events of the war were for some time neither
brilliant or important, for several campaigns began and ended
without any considerable result. ... At length Louis XIV.
entered on the second half of his reign, which differed widely
from the first. ... During this second period of more than
thirty years, which begins after the Treaty of Nimeguen and
lasts till the Peace of Utrecht, events succeed each other in
complete logical sequence, so that the reign presents itself
as one continuous whole, with a regular movement of ascension
and decline. ... The leading principle of the reign remained
the same; it was always the desire to weaken the House of
Austria, or to secure an advantageous partition of the Spanish
succession. But the Emperor of Germany was protected by the
coalition, and the King of Spain, whose death was considered
imminent, would not make up his mind to die. ... During the
first League, when the Prince of Orange was contending against
Louis XIV. with the co-operation of the Emperor of Germany, of
the King of Spain, and of the Electors on the Rhine, the
religious element played only a secondary part in the war. But
we shall see this element make its presence more manifest. ...
Thus the influence of Protestant England made itself more and
more felt in the affairs of Europe, in proportion as the
government of the Stuarts, from its violence, its
unpopularity, and from the opposition offered to it, was
approaching its end. ... The second coalition was neither more
united nor more firm than the first had been: but, after the
expulsion of the Stuarts, the germs of dissolution no longer
threatened the same dangers. ... The British nation now made
itself felt in the balance of Europe, and William of Orange
was for the first time in his life successful in war at the
head of his English troops. ... This was the most brilliant
epoch of the life of William III. ... He was now at the height
of his glory, after a period of twenty years from his start in
life, and his destiny was accomplished; so that until the
Treaty of Ryswick, which in 1698 put an end to his hostilities
with France, and brought about his recognition as King of
England by Louis XIV., not much more was left for him to gain;
and he had the skill to lose nothing. ... The negotiations for
the Treaty of Ryswick were conducted with less ability and
boldness, and concluded on less advantageous terms, than the
Truce of Ratisbon or the Peace of Nimeguen. Nevertheless, this
treaty, which secured to Louis the possession of Strasbourg,
might, particularly as age was now creeping on him, have
closed his military career without disgrace, if the eternal
question, for the solution of which he had made so many
sacrifices, and which had always held the foremost place in
his thoughts, had not remained as unsettled and as full of
difficulty as on the day when he had mounted the throne.
{211}
Charles II. of Spain was not dead, and the question of the
Spanish succession, which had so actively employed the armies
of Louis XIV., and taxed his diplomacy, was as undecided as at
the beginning of his reign. Louis XIV. saw two alternatives
before him: a partition of the succession between the Emperor
and himself (a solution proposed thirty years before as a
means to avoid war), or else a will in favour of France,
followed of course by a recommencement of general hostilities.
... Louis XIV. proposed in succession two schemes, not, as
thirty years before, to the Emperor, but to the King of
England, whose power and whose genius rendered him the arbiter
of all the great affairs of Europe. ... In the first of the
treaties of partition, Spain and the Low Countries were to be
given to the Prince of Bavaria; in the second, to the Archduke
Charles. In both, France obtained Naples and Sicily for the
Dauphin. ... Both these arrangements ... suited both France
and England as a pacific solution of the question. ... But
events, as we know, deranged all these calculations, and
Charles II., who, by continuing to live, had disappointed so
much impatient expectation, by his last will provoked a
general war, to be carried on against France by the union of
England with the Empire and with Holland--a union which was
much strengthened under the new dynasty, and which afterwards
embraced the northern states of Germany. ... William III. died
at the age of fifty-two, on the 9th of March, 1702, at the
beginning of the War of Succession. After him, the part he was
to have played was divided. Prince Eugene, Marlborough, and
Heinsius (the Grand Pensionary) had the conduct of political
and especially of military affairs, and acted in concert. The
disastrous consequences to France of that war, in which
William had no part, are notorious. The battles of Blenheim,
of Ramilies, and of Oudenarde brought the allied armies on the
soil of France, and placed Louis XIV. on the verge of ruin."
J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the
15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 390-414 and 441-455.
ALSO IN:
H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV:,
volume 2, chapter 2 and 4-6.
T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 5-6 (volume 3).
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1697.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1687.
Merciless suppression of the Hungarian revolt.
The crown of Hungary made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.
The Peace of Carlowitz.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1699--1711.
Suppression of the Revolt under Rakoczy in Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1700.
Interest of the Imperial House in the question of the Spanish
Succession.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1701-1713.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1704;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
SPAIN: A. D. 1702, to 1707-1710, and
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Its Circumstances changed.
"The death of the Emperor Joseph I., who expired April 17,
1711, at the age of thirty-two, changed the whole character of
the War of the Spanish Succession. As Joseph left no male
heirs, the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria
devolved to his brother, the Archduke Charles; and though that
prince had not been elected King of the Romans, and had
therefore to become a candidate for the imperial crown, yet
there could be little doubt that he would attain that dignity.
Hence, if Charles should also become sovereign of Spain and
the Indies, the vast empire of Charles V. would be again
united in one person; and that very evil of an almost
universal monarchy would be established, the prevention of
which had been the chief cause for taking up arms against
Philip V. ... After an interregnum of half a year, during
which the affairs of the Empire had been conducted by the
Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, as imperial vicars
for South and North Germany, the Archduke Charles was
unanimously named Emperor by the Electoral College (Oct.
12th). ... Charles ... received the imperial crown at
Frankfort, Dec. 22d, with the title of Charles VI."
T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.
Acquisition of the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1719.
Continued differences with Spain.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714.
The Desertion of the Catalans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714-1718.
Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks from
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738.
The question of the Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., and its guarantee by
the Powers.
"On the death [A. D. 1711] of Joseph, the hopes of the house
of Austria and the future destiny of Germany rested on Charles
[then, as titular king of Spain, Charles III., ineffectually
contesting the Spanish throne with the Bourbon heir, Philip V.
afterwards, as Emperor, Charles VI.] who was the only
surviving male of his illustrious family. By that event the
houses of Austria, Germany and Europe were placed in a new and
critical situation. From a principle of mistaken policy the
succession to the hereditary dominions had never been
established according to an invariable rule; for it was not
clearly ascertained whether males of the collateral branches
should be preferred to females in lineal descent, an
uncertainty which had frequently occasioned many vehement
disputes. To obviate this evil, as well as to prevent future
disputes, Leopold [father of Joseph and Charles] had arranged
the order of succession: to Joseph he assigned Hungary and
Bohemia, and the other hereditary dominions; and to Charles
the crown of Spain, and all the territories which belonged to
the Spanish inheritance. Should Joseph die without issue male,
the whole succession was to descend to Charles, and in case of
his death, under similar circumstances, the Austrian dominions
were to devolve on the daughters of Joseph in preference to
those of Charles. This family compact was signed by the two
brothers in the presence of Leopold. Joseph died without male
issue; but left two daughters." He was succeeded by Charles in
accordance with the compact.
{212}
"On the 2nd of August, 1718, soon after the signature of the
Quadruple Alliance, Charles promulgated a new law of
succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under
the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. According to the family
compact formed by Leopold, and confirmed by Joseph and
Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of
Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, should they
both die without issue male. Charles, however, had scarcely
ascended the throne, though at that time without children,
than he reversed this compact, and settled the right of
succession, in default of his male issue, first on his
daughters, then on the daughters of Joseph, and afterwards on
the queen of Portugal and the other daughters of Leopold.
Since the promulgation of that decree, the Empress had borne a
son who died in his infancy, and three daughters, Maria
Theresa, Maria Anne and Maria Amelia. With a view to insure
the succession of these daughters, and to obviate the dangers
which might arise from the claims of the Josephine
archduchesses, he published the Pragmatic Sanction, and
compelled his nieces to renounce their pretensions on their
marriages with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. Aware,
however, that the strongest renunciations are disregarded, he
obtained from the different states of his extensive dominions
the acknowledgement of the Pragmatic Sanction, and made it the
great object of his reign, to which he sacrificed every other
consideration, to procure the guaranty of the European
powers." This guaranty was obtained in treaties with the
several powers, as follows: Spain in 1725; Russia, 1726,
renewed in 1733; Prussia, 1728; England and Holland, 1731;
France, 1738; the Empire, 1732. The inheritance which Charles
thus endeavored to secure to his daughter was vast and
imposing. "He was by election Emperor of Germany, by
hereditary right sovereign of Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia,
Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the Tyrol, and the
Brisgau, and he had recently obtained Naples and Sicily, the
Milanese and the Netherlands."
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 80, 84-85 (volume 3).
"The Pragmatic Sanction, though framed to legalize the
accession of Maria Theresa, excludes the present Emperor's
daughters and his grandchild by postponing the succession of
females to that of males in the family of Charles VI."
J. D. Bourchier, The Heritage of the Hapsburgs
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1889).
ALSO IN:
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 2.
S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1719.
Sardinia ceded to the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily.
See
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and
ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1731.
The second Treaty of Vienna with England and Holland.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
Interference in the election of the King of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1733-1735.
The war of the Polish Succession.
Cession of Naples and Sicily to Spain, and Lorraine and Bar to
France.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735, and
ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1737-1739.
Unfortunate war with the Turks, in alliance with Russia.
Humiliating peace of Belgrade.
Surrender of Belgrade, with Servia, and part of Bosnia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October).
Treachery among the Guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction.
The inheritance of Marie Theresa disputed.
"The Emperor Charles VI. ... died on the 20th of October,
1740. His daughter Maria Theresa, the heiress of his dominions
with the title of Queen of Hungary, was but twenty-three years
of age, without experience or knowledge of business; and her
husband Francis, the titular Duke of Lorraine and reigning
Grand Duke of Tuscany, deserved the praise of amiable
qualities rather than of commanding talents. Her Ministers
were timorous, irresolute, and useless: 'I saw them in
despair,' writes Mr. Robinson, the British envoy, 'but that
very despair was not capable of rendering them bravely
desperate.' The treasury was exhausted, the army dispersed,
and no General risen to replace Eugene. The succession of
Maria Theresa was, indeed, cheerfully acknowledged by her
subjects, and seemed to be secured amongst foreign powers by
their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction; but it soon
appeared that such guarantees are mere worthless parchments
where there is strong temptation to break and only a feeble
army to support them. The principal claimant to the succession
was the Elector of Bavaria, who maintained that the will of
the Emperor Ferdinand the First devised the Austrian states to
his daughter, from whom the Elector descended, on failure of
male lineage. It appeared that the original will in the
archives at Vienna referred to the failure not of the male but
of the legitimate issue of his sons; but this document, though
ostentatiously displayed to all the Ministers of state and
foreign ambassadors, was very far from inducing the Elector to
desist from his pretensions. As to the Great Powers--the Court
of France, the old ally of the Bavarian family, and mindful of
its injuries from the House of Austria, was eager to exalt the
first by the depression of the latter. The Bourbons in Spain
followed the direction of the Bourbons in France. The King of
Poland and the Empress of Russia were more friendly in their
expressions than in their designs. An opposite spirit pervaded
England and Holland, where motives of honour and of policy
combined to support the rights of Maria Theresa. In Germany
itself the Elector of Cologne, the Bavarian's brother, warmly
espoused his cause: and 'the remaining Electors,' says
Chesterfield, 'like electors with us, thought it a proper
opportunity of making the most of their votes,--and all at
the expense of the helpless and abandoned House of Austria!'
The first blow, however, came from Prussia, where the King
Frederick William had died a few months before, and been
succeeded by his son Frederick the Second; a Prince surnamed
the Great by poets."
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,
1713-1783, chapter 23 (volume 3).
"The elector of Bavaria acted in a prompt, honest, and
consistent manner. He at once lodged a protest against any
disposition of the hereditary estates to the prejudice of his
own rights; insisted on the will of Ferdinand I.; and demanded
the production of the original text. It was promptly produced.
But it was found to convey the succession to the heirs of his
daughter, the ancestress of the elector, not, as he contended,
on the failure of male heirs, but in the absence of more
direct heirs born in wedlock. Maria Theresa could, however,
trace her descent through nearer male heirs, and had,
therefore, a superior title. Charles Albert was in any event
only one of several claimants. The King of Spain, a Bourbon,
presented himself as the heir of the Hapsburg emperor Charles
V. The King of Sardinia alleged an ancient marriage contract,
from which he derived a right to the duchy of Milan. Even
August of Saxony claimed territory by virtue of an antiquated
title, which, it was pretended, the renunciation of his wife
could not affect. All these were, however, mere vultures
compared to the eagle [Frederick of Prussia] which was soon to
descend upon its prey."
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 2.
{213}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October-November).
The War of the Succession.
Conduct of Frederick the Great as explained by himself.
"This Pragmatic Sanction had been guarantied by France,
England, Holland, Sardinia, Saxony, and the Roman empire; nay
by the late King Frederic William [of Prussia] also, on
condition that the court of Vienna would secure to him the
succession of Juliers and Berg. The emperor promised him the
eventual succession, and did not fulfil his engagements; by
which the King of Prussia, his successor, was freed from this
guarantee, to which his father, the late king, had pledged
himself, conditionally. ... Frederic I., when he erected
Prussia into a kingdom, had, by that vain grandeur, planted
the scion of ambition in the bosom of his posterity; which,
soon or late, must fructify. The monarchy he had left to his
descendants was, if I may be permitted the expression, a kind
of hermaphrodite, which was rather more an electorate than a
kingdom. Fame was to be acquired by determining the nature of
this being: and this sensation certainly was one of those
which strengthened so many motives, conspiring to engage the
king in grand enterprises. If the acquisition of the dutchy of
Berg had not even met with almost insurmountable impediments,
it was in itself so small that the possession would add little
grandeur to the house of Brandenbourg. These reflections
occasioned the king to turn his views toward the house of
Austria, the succession of which would become matter of
litigation, at the death of the emperor, when the throne of
the Cæsars should be vacant. That event must be favourable to
the distinguished part which the king had to act in Germany,
by the various claims of the houses of Saxony and Bavaria to
these states; by the number of candidates which might canvass
for the Imperial crown; and by the projects of the court of
Versailles, which, on such an occasion, must naturally profit
by the troubles that the death of Charles VI. could not fail
to excite. This accident did not long keep the world in
expectation. The emperor ended his days at the palace La
Favorite, on the 26th [20th] day of October, 1740. The news
arrived at Rheinsberg when the king was ill of a fever. ... He
immediately resolved to reclaim the principalities of Silesia;
the rights of his house to which [long dormant, the claim
dating back to a certain covenant of heritage-brotherhood with
the duke of Liegnitz, in 1537, which the emperor of that day
caused to be annulled by the States of Bohemia] were
incontestable: and he prepared, at the same time, to support
these pretensions, if necessary, by arms. This project
accomplished all his political views; it afforded the means of
acquiring reputation, of augmenting the power of the state,
and of terminating what related to the litigious succession of
the dutchy of Berg. ...The state of the court of Vienna, after
the death of the emperor, was deplorable. The finances were in
disorder; the army was ruined and discouraged by ill success
in its wars with the Turks; the ministry disunited, and a
youthful unexperienced princess at the head of the government,
who was to defend the succession from all claimants. The
result was that the government could not appear formidable. It
was besides impossible that the king should be destitute of
allies. ... The war which he might undertake in Silesia was
the only offensive war that could be favoured by the situation
of his states, for it would be carried on upon his frontiers,
and the Oder would always furnish him with a sure
communication. ... Add to these reasons, an army fit to march,
a treasury ready prepared, and, perhaps, the ambition of
acquiring renown. Such were the causes of the war which the
king declared against Maria Theresa of Austria, queen of
Hungary and Bohemia."
Frederick II. (Frederick the Great), History of My Own
Times: Posthumous Works (translated by Holcroft),
volume 1, chapter 1-2.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
The War of the Succession: Faithlessness of the King of Prussia.
The Macaulay verdict.
"From no quarter did the young queen of Hungary receive
stronger assurances of friendship and support than from the
King of Prussia. Yet the King of Prussia, the
'Anti-Machiavel,' had already fully determined to commit the
great crime of violating his plighted faith, of robbing the
ally whom he was bound to defend, and of plunging all Europe
into a long, bloody, and desolating war, and all this for no
end whatever except that he might extend his dominions and see
his name in the gazettes. He determined to assemble a great
army with speed and secrecy, to invade Silesia before Maria
Theresa should be apprized of his design, and to add that rich
province to his kingdom. ... Without any declaration of war,
without any demand for reparation, in the very act of pouring
forth compliments and assurances of good will, Frederic
commenced hostilities. Many thousands of his troops were
actually in Silesia before the Queen of Hungary knew that he
had set up any claim to any part of her territories. At length
he sent her a message which could be regarded only as an
insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he
said, stand by her against any power which should try to
deprive her of her other dominions: as if he was not already
bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of
more value than the old one. It was the depth of winter. The
cold was severe, and the roads deep in mire. But the Prussians
pressed on. Resistance was impossible. The Austrian army was
then neither numerous nor efficient. The small portion of that
army which lay in Silesia was unprepared for hostilities.
Glogau was blockaded; Breslau opened its gates; Ohlau was
evacuated. A few scattered garrisons still held out; but the
whole open country was subjugated: no enemy ventured to
encounter the king in the field; and, before the end of
January, 1741, he returned to receive the congratulations of
his subjects at Berlin.
{214}
Had the Silesian question been merely a question between
Frederic and Maria Theresa it would be impossible to acquit
the Prussian king of gross perfidy. But when we consider the
effects which his policy produced, and could not fail to
produce, on the whole community of civilized nations, we are
compelled to pronounce a condemnation still more severe. ...
The selfish rapacity of the king of Prussia gave the signal to
his neighbours. ... The evils produced by this wickedness were
felt in lands where the name of Prussia was unknown; and, in
order that he might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to
defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel, and red
men scalped each other by the great lakes of North America.
Silesia had been occupied without a battle; but the Austrian
troops were advancing to the relief of the fortresses which
still held out. In the spring Frederic rejoined his army. He
had seen little of war, and had never commanded any great body
of men in the field. ... Frederic's first battle was fought at
Molwitz [April 10, 1741], and never did the career of a great
commander open in a more inauspicious manner. His army was
victorious. Not only, however, did he not establish his title
to the character of an able general, but he was so unfortunate
as to make it doubtful whether he possessed the vulgar courage
of a soldier. The cavalry, which he commanded in person, was
put to flight. Unaccustomed to the tumult and carnage of a
field of battle, he lost his self-possession, and listened too
readily to those who urged him to save himself. His English
gray carried him many miles from the field, while Schwerin,
though wounded in two places, manfully upheld the day. The
skill of the old Field-Marshal and the steadiness of the
Prussian battalions prevailed, and the Austrian army was
driven from the field with the loss of 8,000 men. The news was
carried late at night to a mill in which the king had taken
shelter. It gave him a bitter pang. He was successful; but he
owed his success to dispositions which others had made, and to
the valour of men who had fought while he was flying. So
unpromising was the first appearance of the greatest warrior
of that age."
Lord Macaulay, Frederic the Great (Essays, volume 4).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (April-May).
The War of the Succession: French responsibility.
The Carlyle verdict.
"The battle of Mollwitz went off like a signal shot among the
Nations; intimating that they were, one and all, to go
battling. Which they did, with a witness; making a terrible
thing of it, over all the world, for above seven years to
come. ... Not that Mollwitz kindled Europe; Europe was already
kindled for some two years past;--especially since the late
Kaiser died, and his Pragmatic Sanction was superadded to the
other troubles afoot. But ever since that image of Jenkins's
Ear had at last blazed up in the slow English brain, like a
fiery constellation or Sign in the Heavens, symbolic of such
injustices and unendurabilities, and had lighted the
Spanish-English War [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], Europe was
slowly but pretty surely taking fire. France 'could not see
Spain humbled,' she said: England (in its own dim feeling, and
also in the fact of things), could not do at all without
considerably humbling Spain. France, endlessly interested in
that Spanish-English matter, was already sending out fleets,
firing shots,--almost, or altogether, putting her hand in it.
'In which case, will not, must not, Austria help us?' thought
England,--and was asking, daily, at Vienna ... when the late
Kaiser died. ... But if not as cause, then as signal, or as
signal and cause together (which it properly was), the Battle
of Mollwitz gave the finishing stroke and set all in motion.
... For directly on the back of Mollwitz, there ensued, first,
an explosion of Diplomatic activity, such as was never seen
before; Excellencies from the four winds taking wing towards
Friedrich; and talking and insinuating, and fencing and
fugling, after their sort, in that Silesian camp of his, the
centre being there. A universal rookery of Diplomatists, whose
loud cackle is now as if gone mad to us; their work wholly
fallen putrescent and avoidable, dead to all creatures. And
secondly, in the train of that, there ensued a universal
European War, the French and the English being chief parties
in it; which abounds in battles and feats of arms, spirited
but delirious, and cannot be got stilled for seven or eight
years to come; and in which Friedrich and his War swim only as
an intermittent Episode henceforth. ... The first point to be
noted is, Where did it originate? To which the answer mainly
is ... with Monseigneur, the Maréchal de Belleisle
principally; with the ambitious cupidities and baseless
vanities of the French Court and Nation, as represented by
Belleisle. ... The English-Spanish War had a basis to stand on
in this Universe. The like had the Prussian-Austrian one; so
all men now admit. If Friedrich had not business there, what
man ever had in an enterprise he ventured on? Friedrich, after
such trial and proof as has seldom been, got his claims on
Schlesien allowed by the Destinies. ... Friedrich had business
in this War; and Maria Theresa versus Friedrich had likewise
cause to appear in Court, and do her utmost pleading against
him. But if we ask, What Belleisle or France and Louis XV. had
to do there? the answer is rigorously Nothing. Their own windy
vanities, ambitions, sanctioned not by fact and the Almighty
Powers, but by Phantasm and the babble of Versailles;
transcendent self-conceit, intrinsically insane; pretensions
over their fellow-creatures which were without basis anywhere
in Nature, except in the French brain; it was this that
brought Belleisle and France into a German War. And Belleisle
and France having gone into an Anti-Pragmatic War, the unlucky
George and his England were dragged into a Pragmatic
one,--quitting their own business, on the Spanish Main, and
hurrying to Germany,--in terror as at Doomsday, and zeal to
save the Keystone of Nature there. That is the notable point
in regard to this War: That France is to be called the author
of it, who, alone of all the parties, had no business there
whatever."
T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II.,
book 12, chapter 11 (volume 4).
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
{215}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (May-June).
Mission of Belleisle.
The thickening of the Plot.
"The defeat of Maria Theresa's only army [at Mollwitz] swept
away all the doubts and scruples of France. The fiery
Belleisle had already set out upon his mission to the various
German courts, armed with powers which were reluctantly
granted by the cardinal [Fleury, the French minister], and
were promptly enlarged by the ambassador to suit his own more
ambitious views of the situation. He travelled in oriental
state. ... The almost royal pomp with which he strode into the
presence of princes of the blood, the copious eloquence with
which he pleaded his cause, ... were only the outward
decorations of one of the most iniquitous schemes ever devised
by an unscrupulous diplomacy. The scheme, when stripped of all
its details, did not indeed at first appear absolutely
revolting. It proposed simply to secure the election of
Charles Albert of Bavaria as emperor, an honor to which he had
a perfect right to aspire. But it was difficult to obtain the
votes of certain electors without offering them the prospect
of territorial gains, and impossible for Charles Albert to
support the imperial dignity without greater revenues than
those of Bavaria. It was proposed, therefore, that provinces
should be taken from Maria Theresa herself, first to purchase
votes against her own husband, and then to swell the income of
the successful rival candidate. The three episcopal electors
were first visited, and subjected to various forms of
persuasion, bribes, flattery, threats,--until the effects of
the treatment began to appear; the count palatine was devoted
to France; and these four with Bavaria made a majority of one.
But that was too small a margin for Belleisle's aspirations,
or even for the safety of his project. The four remaining
votes belonged to the most powerful of the German states,
Prussia, Hanover, Saxony and Bohemia. ... Bohemia, if it voted
at all, would of course vote for the grand-duke Francis
[husband of Maria Theresa]. Saxony and Hanover were already
negotiating with Maria Theresa; and it was well understood
that Austria could have Frederick's support by paying his
price." Austria refused to pay the price, and Frederick signed
a treaty with the king of France at Breslau on the 4th of
June, 1741. "The essence of it was contained in four secret
articles. In these the king of Prussia renounced his claim to
Jülich-Berg in behalf of the house of Sulzbach, and agreed to
give his vote to the elector of Bavaria for emperor. The king
of France engaged to guarantee Prussia in the possession of
Lower Silesia, to send within two months an army to the
support of Bavaria, and to provoke an immediate rupture
between Sweden and Russia."
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 4.
ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 99
(volume 3).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (June-September).
Maria Theresa and the Hungarians.
"During these anxious summer months Maria Theresa and the
Austrian court had resided mainly at Presburg, in Hungary.
Here she had been occupied in the solution of domestic as well
as international problems. The Magyars, as a manly and
chivalrous race, had been touched by the perilous situation of
the young queen; but, while ardently protesting their loyalty,
insisted not the less on the recognition of their own
inalienable rights. These had been inadequately observed in
recent years, and in consequence no little disaffection
prevailed in Hungary. The magnates resolved, therefore, as
they had resolved at the beginning of previous reigns, to
demand the restoration of all their rights and privileges. But
it does not appear that they wished to take any ungenerous
advantage of the sex or the necessities of Maria Theresa. They
were argumentative and stubborn, yet not in a bargaining,
mercenary spirit. They accepted in June a qualified compliance
with their demands; and when on the 25th of that month the
queen appeared before the diet to receive the crown of St.
Stephen, and, according to custom, waved the great sword of
the kingdom toward the four points of the compass, toward the
north and the south, the east and the west, challenging all
enemies to dispute her right, the assembly was carried away by
enthusiasm, and it seemed as if an end had forever been put to
constitutional technicalities. Such was, however, not the
case. After the excitement caused by the dramatic coronation
had in a measure subsided, the old contentions revived, as
bitter and vexatious as before. These concerned especially the
manner in which the administration of Hungary should be
adjusted to meet the new state of things. Should the chief
political offices be filled by native Hungarians, as the diet
demanded? Could the co-regency of the grand-duke, which was
ardently desired by the queen, be accepted by the Magyars? For
two months the dispute over these problems raged at Presburg,
until finally Maria Theresa herself found a bold, ingenious,
and patriotic solution. The news of the Franco-Bavarian
alliance and the fall of Passau determined her to throw
herself completely upon the gallantry and devotion of the
Magyars. It had long been the policy of the court of Vienna
not to entrust the Hungarians with arms. ... But Maria Theresa
had not been robbed, in spite of her experience with France
and Prussia, of all her faith in human nature. She took the
responsibility of her decision, and the result proved that her
insight was correct. On the 11th of September she summoned the
members of the diet before her, and, seated on the throne,
explained to them the perilous situation of her dominions. The
danger, she said, threatened herself, and all that was dear to
her. Abandoned by all her allies, she took refuge in the
fidelity and the ancient valor of the Hungarians, to whom she
entrusted herself, her children, and her empire. Here she
broke into tears, and covered, her face with her handkerchief.
The diet responded to this appeal by proclaiming the
'insurrection' or the equipment of a large popular force for
the defence of the queen. So great was the enthusiasm that it
nearly swept away even the original aversion of the Hungarians
to the grand-duke Francis, who, to the queen's delight, was
finally, though not without some murmurs, accepted as
co-regent. ... This uprising was organized not an hour too
early, for dangers were pressing upon the queen from every
side."
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 4.
ALSO IN: Duc de Broglie, Frederick the Great and Maria
Theresa, chapter 4 (volume 2).
{216}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (August-November).
The French-Bavarian onset.
"France now began to act with energy. In the month of August
[1741] two French armies crossed the Rhine, each about 40, 000
strong. The first marched into Westphalia, and frightened
George II. into concluding a treaty of neutrality for Hanover,
and promising his vote to the Elector of Bavaria. The second
advanced through South Germany on Passau, the frontier city of
Bavaria and Austria. As soon as it arrived on German soil, the
French officers assumed the blue and white cockade of
Bavaria, for it was the cue of France to appear only as an
auxiliary, and the nominal command of her army was vested in
the Elector. From Passau the French and Bavarians passed into
Upper Austria, and on Sept. 11 entered its capital, Linz,
where the Elector assumed the title of Archduke. Five days
later Saxony joined the allies. Sweden had already declared
war on Russia. Spain trumped up an old claim and attacked the
Austrian dominions in Italy. It seemed as if Belleisle's
schemes were about to be crowned with complete success. Had
the allies pushed forward, Vienna must have fallen into their
hands. But the French did not wish to be too victorious, lest
they should make the Elector too powerful, and so independent
of them. Therefore, after six weeks' delay, they turned aside
to the conquest of Bohemia."
F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years
War, chapter 4, section 4.
"While . . . a portion of the French troops, under the command
of the Count de Segur, was left in Upper Austria, the
remainder of the allied army turned towards Bohemia; where
they were joined by a body of Saxons, under the command of
Count Rutowsky. They took Prague by assault, on the night of
the 25th of November, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the
husband of Maria Theresa, was marching to his relief. In
Prague, 3,000 prisoners were taken. The elector of Bavaria
hastened there, upon hearing of the success of his arms, was
crowned King of Bohemia, during the month of December, and
received the oath of fidelity from the constituted
authorities. But while he was thus employed, the Austrian
general, Khevenhuller, had driven the Count de Segur out of
Austria, and had himself entered Bavaria; which obliged the
Bavarian army to abandon Bohemia and hasten to the defence of
their own country."
Lord Dover, Life of Frederick II.,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN: Frederick II., History of My Own Times
(Posthumous Works, volume 1, chapter 5).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (October).
Secret Treaty with Frederick.
Lower Silesia conceded to him.
Austrian success.
"By October, 1741, the fortunes of Maria Theresa had sunk to
the lowest ebb, but a great revulsion speedily set in. The
martial enthusiasm of the Hungarians, the subsidy from
England, and the brilliant military talents of General
Khevenhuller, restored her armies. Vienna was put in a state
of defence, and at the same time jealousies and suspicion made
their way among the confederates. The Electors of Bavaria and
Saxony were already in some degree divided; and the Germans,
and especially Frederick, were alarmed by the growing
ascendency, and irritated by the haughty demeanour of the
French. In the moment of her extreme depression, the Queen
consented to a concession which England had vainly urged upon
her before, and which laid the foundation of her future
success. In October 1741 she entered into a secret convention
with Frederick [called the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf],
by which that astute sovereign agreed to desert his allies,
and desist from hostilities, on condition of ultimately
obtaining Lower Silesia, with Breslau and Neisse. Every
precaution was taken to ensure secrecy. It was arranged that
Frederick should continue to besiege Neisse, that the town
should ultimately be surrendered to him, and that his troops
should then retire into winter quarters, and take no further
part in the war. As the sacrifice of a few more lives was
perfectly indifferent to the contracting parties, and in order
that no one should suspect the treachery that was
contemplated, Neisse, after the arrangement had been made for
its surrender, was subjected for four days and four nights to
the horrors of bombardment. Frederick, at the same time
talked, with his usual cynical frankness, to the English
ambassador about the best way of attacking his allies the
French; and observed, that if the Queen of Hungary prospered,
he would perhaps support her, if not--everyone must look for
himself. He only assented verbally to this convention, and, no
doubt, resolved to await the course of events, in order to
decide which Power it was his interest finally to betray; but
in the meantime the Austrians obtained a respite, which
enabled them to throw their whole forces upon their other
enemies. Two brilliant campaigns followed. The greater part of
Bohemia was recovered by an army under the Duke of Lorraine,
and the French were hemmed in at Prague; while another army,
under General Khevenhuller, invaded Upper Austria, drove
10,000 French soldiers within the walls of Linz, blockaded
them, defeated a body of Bohemians who were sent to the
rescue, compelled the whole French army to surrender, and
then, crossing the frontier, poured in a resistless torrent
over Bavaria. The fairest plains of that beautiful land were
desolated by hosts of irregular troops from Hungary, Croatia,
and the Tyrol; and on the 12th of February the Austrians
marched in triumph into Munich. On that very day the Elector
of Bavaria was crowned Emperor of Germany, at Frankfort, under
the title of Charles VII., and the imperial crown was thus, for
the first time, for many generations, separated from the House
of Austria."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History:
Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 13-14.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741-1743.
Successes in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (January-May).
Frederick breaks faith again.
Battle of Chotusitz.
"The Queen of Hungary had assembled in the beginning of the
year two considerable armies in Moravia and Bohemia, the one
under Prince Lobkowitz, to defend the former province, and the
other commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine, her
brother-in-law. This young Prince possessed as much bravery
and activity as Frederick, and had equally with him the talent
of inspiring attachment and confidence. ... Frederick, alarmed
at these preparations and the progress of the Austrians in
Bavaria, abruptly broke off the convention of
Ober-Schnellendorf, and recommenced hostilities. ... The King
of Prussia became apprehensive that the Queen of Hungary would
again turn her arms to recover Silesia. He therefore
dispatched Marshal Schwerin to seize Olmutz and lay siege to
Glatz, which surrendered after a desperate resistance on the
9th of January. Soon after this event, the King rejoined his
army, and endeavoured to drive the Austrians from their
advantageous position in the southern parts of Bohemia, which
would have delivered the French troops in the neighbourhood
and checked the progress of Khevenhüller in Bavaria.
{217}
The king advanced to Iglau, on the frontiers of Bohemia, and,
occupying the banks of the Taya, made irruptions into Upper
Austria, his hussars spreading terror even to the gates of
Vienna. The Austrians drew from Bavaria a corps of 10,000 men
to cover the capital, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the
head of 50,000 men, threatened the Prussian magazines in Upper
Silesia, and by this movement compelled Frederick to detach a
considerable force for their protection, and to evacuate
Moravia, which he had invaded. Broglie, who commanded the
French forces in that country, must now have fallen a
sacrifice, had not the ever-active King of Prussia brought up
30,000 men, which, under the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, entering
Bohemia, came up with Prince Charles at Czaslau, about
thirty-five miles from Prague, before he could form a junction
with Prince Lobkowitz. Upon this ensued [May 17, 1742] what is
known in history as the battle of Czaslau [also, and more
commonly, called the battle of Chotusitz]. ... The numbers in
the two armies were nearly equal, and the action was warmly
contested on both sides. ... The Prussians remained masters of
the field, with 18 cannon, two pairs of colours and 1,200
prisoners; but they indeed paid dearly for the honour, for it
was computed that their loss was equal to that of their enemy,
which amounted to 7,000 men on either side; while the Prussian
cavalry, under Field-Marshal Buddenbroch, was nearly ruined.
... Although in this battle the victory was, without doubt, on
the side of the Prussians, yet the immediate consequences were
highly favourable to the Queen of Hungary. The King was
disappointed of his expected advantages, and conceived a
disgust to the war. He now lowered his demands and made
overtures of accommodation, which, on the 11th of June,
resulted in a treaty of peace between the two crowns, which
was signed at Breslau under the mediation of the British
Ambassador."
Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
volume 2, page 19.
ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of
Prussia, book 13, chapter 13 (volume 5).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June).
Treaty of Breslau with the King of Prussia.
"The following are the preliminary articles which were signed
at Breslau: 1. The queen of Hungary ceded to the king of
Prussia Upper and Lower Silesia, with the principality of
Glatz; except the towns of Troppau, Jaegendorff and the high
mountains situated beyond the Oppa. 2. The Prussians undertook
to repay the English 1,700,000 crowns; which sum was a
mortgage loan on Silesia. The remaining articles related to a
suspension of arms, an exchange of prisoners, and the freedom
of religion and trade. Thus was Silesia united to the Prussian
States. Two years were sufficient for the conquest of that
important province. The treasures which the late king had left
were almost expended; but provinces that do not cost more than
seven or eight millions are cheaply purchased."
Frederic II., History of My Own Times (Posthumous Works,
volume 1), chapter 6.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June-December).
Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.
Belleisle's retreat from Prague.
"The Austrian arms began now to be successful in all quarters.
Just before the signature of the preliminaries, Prince
Lobcowitz, who was stationed at Budweiss with 10,000 men, made
an attack on Frauenberg; Broglio and Belleisle advanced from
Piseck to relieve the town, and a combat took place at Sahay,
in which the Austrians were repulsed with the loss of 500 men.
This trifling affair was magnified into a decisive victory.
... Marshal Broglio, elated with this advantage, and relying
on the immediate junction of the King of Prussia, remained at
Frauenberg in perfect security. But his expectations were
disappointed; Frederic had already commenced his secret
negotiations, and Prince Charles was enabled to turn his
forces against the French. Being joined by Prince Lobcowitz,
they attacked Broglio, and compelled him to quit Frauenberg
with such precipitation that his baggage fell into the hands
of the light troops, and the French retreated towards Branau,
harassed by the Croats and other irregulars. ... The
Austrians, pursuing their success against the French, drove
Broglio from Branau, and followed him to the walls of Prague,
where he found Belleisle. ... After several consultations, the
two generals called in their posts, and secured their army
partly within the walls and partly within a peninsula of the
Moldau. ... Soon afterwards the duke of Lorraine joined the
army [of Prince Charles], which now amounted to 70 70,000 men,
and the arrival of the heavy artillery enabled the Austrians to
commence the siege."
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 102 (volume 3).
"To relieve the French at Prague, Marshal Maillebois was
directed to advance with his army from Westphalia. At these
tidings Prince Charles changed the siege of Prague to a
blockade, and marching against his new opponents, checked
their progress on the Bohemian frontier; the French, however,
still occupying the town of Egra. It was under these
circumstances that Belleisle made his masterly and renowned
retreat from Prague. In the night of the 16th of December, he
secretly left the city at the head of 11,000 foot and 3,000
horse, having deceived the Austrians' vigilance by the feint
of a general forage in the opposite quarter; and pushed for
Egra through a hostile country, destitute of resources and
surrounded by superior enemies. His soldiers, with no other
food than frozen bread, and compelled to sleep without
covering on the snow and ice, perished in great numbers; but
the gallant spirit of Belleisle triumphed over every obstacle;
he struck through morasses almost untrodden before, offered
battle to Prince Lobkowitz, who, however, declined engaging,
and at length succeeded in reaching the other French army with
the flower of his own. The remnant left at Prague, and
amounting only to 6,000 men, seemed an easy prey; yet their
threat of firing the city, and perishing beneath its ruins,
and the recent proof of what despair can do, obtained for them
honourable terms, and the permission of rejoining their
comrades at Egra. But in spite of all this skill and courage
in the French invaders, the final result to them was failure;
nor had they attained a single permanent advantage beyond
their own safety in retreat. Maillebois and De Broglie took up
winter quarters in Bavaria, while Belleisle led back his
division across the Rhine; and it was computed that, of the
35,000 men whom he had first conducted into Germany, not more
than 8,000 returned beneath his banner."
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,
1713-1783, chapter 24 (volume 3).
"Thus, at the termination of the campaign, all Bohemia was
regained, except Egra; and on the 12th of May, 1743, Maria
Theresa was soon afterwards crowned at Prague, to the recovery
of which, says her great rival, her firmness had more
contributed than the force of her arms. The only reverse which
the Austrians experienced in the midst of their successes was
the temporary loss of Bavaria, which, on the retreat of
Kevenhuller, was occupied by marshal Seckendorf; and the
Emperor made his entry into Munich on the 2d of October."
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 103 (volume 3).
{218}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
England drawn into the conflict.
The Pragmatic Army.
The Battle of Dettingen.
"The cause of Maria Theresa had begun to excite a remarkable
enthusiasm in England. ... The convention of neutrality
entered into by George II. in September 1741, and the
extortion of his vote for the Elector of Bavaria, properly
concerned that prince only as Elector of Hanover; yet, as he
was also King of England, they were felt as a disgrace by the
English people. The elections of that year went against
Walpole, and in February 1742 he found himself compelled to
resign. He was succeeded in the administration by Pulteney,
Earl of Bath, though Lord Carteret was virtually prime
minister. Carteret was an ardent supporter of the cause of
Maria Theresa. His accession to office was immediately
followed by a large increase of the army and navy; five
millions were voted for carrying on the war, and a subsidy of
£500,000 for the Queen of Hungary. The Earl of Stair, with an
army of 16,000 men, afterwards reinforced by a large body of
Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, was despatched into
the Netherlands to cooperate with the Dutch. But though the
States-General, at the instance of the British Cabinet, voted
Maria Theresa a subsidy, they were not yet prepared to take an
active part in a war which might ultimately involve them in
hostilities with France. The exertions of the English ministry
in favour of the Queen of Hungary had therefore been confined
during the year 1742 to diplomacy, and they had helped to
bring about ... the Peace of Breslau. In 1743 they were able
to do more," In April, 1743, the Emperor, Charles VII.,
regained possession of Bavaria and returned to Munich, but
only to be driven out again by the Austrians in June. The
Bavarians were badly beaten at Simpach (May 9), and Munich was
taken (June 12) after a short bombardment. "Charles VII. was
now again obliged to fly, and took refuge at Augsburg. At his
command, Seckendorf [his general] made a convention with the
Austrians at the village of Niederschönfeld, by which he
agreed to abandon to them Bavaria, on condition that Charles's
troops should be allowed to occupy unmolested quarters between
Franconia and Suabia. Maria Theresa seemed at first indisposed
to ratify even terms so humiliating to the Emperor. She had
become perhaps a little too much exalted by the rapid turn of
fortune. She had caused herself to be crowned in Prague. She
had received the homage of the Austrians, and entered Vienna
in a sort of triumph. She now dreamt of nothing less than
conquering Lorraine for herself, Alsace for the Empire; of
hurling Charles VII. from the Imperial throne, and placing on
it her own consort." She was persuaded, however, to consent at
length to the terms of the Niederschönfeld convention.
"Meanwhile the allied army of English and Germans, under the
Earl of Stair, nearly 40,000 strong, which, from its destined
object, had assumed the name of the 'Pragmatic Army,' had
crossed the Meuse and the Rhine in March and April, with a
view to cut off the army of Bavaria from France. George II.
had not concealed his intention of breaking the Treaty of
Hanover of 1741, alleging as a ground that the duration of the
neutrality stipulated in it had not been determined; and on
June 19th he had joined the army in person. He found it in a
most critical position. Lord Stair, who had never
distinguished himself as a general, and was now falling into
dotage, had led it into a narrow valley near Aschaffenburg,
between Mount Spessart and the river Main; while Marshal
Noailles [commanding the French], who had crossed the Rhine
towards the end of April, by seizing the principal fords of
the Main, both above and below the British position, had cut
him off both from his magazines at Hanau, and from the
supplies which he had expected to procure in Franconia.
Nothing remained but for him to fight his way back to Hanau."
In the battle of Dettingen, which followed (June 27), all the
advantages of the French in position were thrown away by the
ignorant impetuosity of the king's nephew, the Duke of
Grammont, who commanded one division, and they suffered a
severe defeat. "The French are said to have lost 6,000 men and
the British half that number. It is the last action in which a
king of England has fought in person. But George II., or
rather Lord Stair, did not know how to profit by his victory.
Although the Pragmatic Army was joined after the battle of
Dettingen by 15,000 Dutch troops, under Prince Maurice of
Nassau, nothing of importance was done during the remainder of
the campaign."
T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
chapter 104 (volume 3).
Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
volume 2, pages 30-36.
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,
1713-1783, chapter 25 (volume 3).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
Treaty of Worms with Sardinia and England.
See ITALY: A. D. 1743.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743 (October).
The Second Bourbon Family Compact.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
The Prussian King strikes in again.
The Union of Frankfort.
Siege and capture of Prague.
"Everywhere Austria was successful, and Frederick had reason
to fear for himself unless the tide of conquest could be
stayed. He explains in the 'Histoire de Mon Temps' that he
feared lest France should abandon the cause of the Emperor,
which would mean that the Austrians, who now boldly spoke of
compensation for the war, would turn their arms against
himself. ... France was trembling, not for her conquests, but
for her own territory. After the battle of Dettingen, the
victorious Anglo-Hanoverian force was to cross the Rhine above
Mayence and march into Alsace, while Prince Charles of
Lorraine, with a strong Austrian army, was to pass near Basle
and occupy Lorraine, taking up his winter quarters in Burgundy
and Champagne. The English crossed without any check and moved
on to Worms, but the Austrians failed in their attempt. Worms
became a centre of intrigue, which Frederick afterwards called
'Cette abyme de mauvaisc fol.' The Dutch were persuaded by
Lord Carteret to join the English, and they did at last send
14,000 men, who were never of the least use.
{219}
Lord Carteret also detached Charles Emanuel, King of Sardinia,
from his French leanings, and persuaded him to enter into the
Austro-English alliance [by the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13,
1743, which conceded to the King of Sardinia Finale, the city
of Placentia, with some other small districts and gave him
command of the allied forces in Italy]. It was clear that
action could not be long postponed, and Frederick began to
recognize the necessity of a new war. His first anxiety was to
guard himself against interference from his northern and
eastern neighbours. He secured, as he hoped, the neutrality of
Russia by marrying the young princess of Anhalt-Zerbst,
afterwards the notorious Empress Catherine, with the
Grand-Duke Peter of Russia, nephew and heir to the reigning
Empress Elizabeth. ... Thus strengthened, as he hoped, in his
rear and flank, and having made the commencement of a German
league called the Union of Frankfurt, by which Hesse and the
Palatinate agreed to join Frederick and the Kaiser, he
concluded on the 5th of June, 1744, a treaty which brought
France also into this alliance. It was secretly agreed that
Frederick was to invade Bohemia, conquer it for the Kaiser,
and have the districts of Königgrätz, Bunzlau, and Leitmeritz
to repay him for his trouble and costs; while France, which
was all this time at war with Austria and England, should send
an army against Prince Charles and the English. ... The first
stroke of the coming war was delivered by France. Louis XV.
sent a large army into the Netherlands under two good leaders,
Noailles and Maurice de Saxe. Urged by his mistress, the
Duchesse de Châteauroux, he joined it himself early, and took
the nominal command early in June. ... The towns [Menin,
Ypres, Fort Knoque, Furnes] rapidly fell before him, and
Marshal Wade, with the Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian army, sat still
and looked at the success of the French. But on the night of
the 30th June--1st July, Prince Charles crossed the Rhine by
an operation which is worth the study of military students,
and invaded Alsace, the French army of observation falling
back before him. Louis XV. hurried back to interpose between
the Austrians and Paris. ... Maurice de Saxe was left in the
Netherlands with 45,000 men. Thus the French army was
paralysed, and the Austrian army in its turn was actually
invading France. At this time Frederick struck in. He sent
word to the King that, though all the terms of their
arrangement had not yet been fulfilled, he would at once
invade Bohemia, and deliver a stroke against Prague which
would certainly cause the retreat of Prince Charles with his
70,000 men. If the French army would follow Prince Charles in
his retreat, Frederick would attack him, and between France
and Prussia the Austrian army would certainly be crushed, and
Vienna be at their mercy. This was no doubt an excellent plan
of campaign, but, like the previous operations concerted with
Broglio, it depended for success upon the good faith of the
French, and this turned out to be a broken reed. On the 7th of
August the Prussian ambassador at Vienna gave notice of the
Union of Frankfurt and withdrew from the court of Austria; and
on the 15th the Prussian army was put in march upon Prague
[opening what is called the Second Silesian War]. Frederick's
forces moved in three columns, the total strength being over
80,000. ... Maria Theresa was now again in great danger, but
as usual retained her high courage, and once more called forth
the enthusiasm of her Hungarian subjects, who sent swarms of
wild troops, horse and foot, to the seat of war. ... On the
1st of September the three columns met before Prague, which
had better defences than in the last campaign, and a garrison
of some 16,000 men. ... During the night of the 9th the
bombardment commenced ... and on the 16th the garrison
surrendered. Thus, one month after the commencement of the
march Prague was captured, and the campaign opened with a
brilliant feat of arms."
Colonel C. B. Brackenbury, Frederick the Great, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 28.
F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History:
Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 17-19.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
Frederick's retreat and fresh triumph.
Austria recovers the imperial crown.
Saxony subdued.
The Peace of Dresden.
After the reduction of Prague, Frederick, "in deference to the
opinion of Marshal Belleisle, but against his own judgment,
advanced into the south of Bohemia with the view of
threatening Vienna. He thus exposed himself to the risk of
being cut off from Prague. Yet even so he would probably have
been able to maintain himself if the French had fulfilled
their engagements. But while he was conquering the districts
of the Upper Moldau, the Austrian army returned unimpaired
from Alsace. The French had allowed it to cross the Rhine
unmolested, and had not made the slightest attempt to harass
its retreat [but applied themselves to the siege and capture
of Freiburg]. They were only too glad to get rid of it
themselves. In the ensuing operations Frederick was completely
outmanoeuvred. Traun [the Austrian general], without risking a
battle, forced him back towards the Silesian frontier. He had
to choose between abandoning Prague and abandoning his
communications with Silesia, and as the Saxons had cut off his
retreat through the Electorate, there was really no choice in
the matter. So he fell back on Silesia, abandoning Prague and
his heavy artillery. The retreat was attended with
considerable loss. Frederick was much struck with the skill
displayed by Traun, and says, in his 'Histoire de mon Temps,'
that he regarded this campaign as his school in the art of war
and M. de Traun as his teacher. The campaign may have been an
excellent lesson in the art of war, but in other respects it
was very disastrous to Frederick. He had drawn upon himself
the whole power of Austria, and had learnt how little the
French were to be depended upon. His prestige was dimmed by
failure, and even in his own army doubts were entertained of
his capacity. But, bad as his position already was, it became
far worse when the unhappy Emperor died [January 20, 1745], worn
out with disease and calamity. This event put an end to the
Union of Frankfort. Frederick could no longer claim to be
acting in defence of his oppressed sovereign; the ground was
cut from under his feet. Nor was there any longer much hope of
preventing the Imperial Crown from reverting to Austria. The
new Elector of Bavaria was a mere boy. In this altered state
of affairs he sought to make peace. But Maria Theresa would
not let him off so easily.
{220}
In order that she might use all her forces against him, she
granted peace to Bavaria, and gave back to the young elector
his hereditary dominions, on condition of his resigning all
claim to hers and promising to vote for her husband as
Emperor. While Frederick thus lost a friend in Bavaria, Saxony
threw herself completely into the arms of his enemy, and
united with Austria in a treaty [May 18] which had for its
object, not the reconquest of Silesia merely, but the
partition of Prussia and the reduction of the king to his
ancient limits as Margrave of Brandenburg. Saxony was then
much larger than it is now, but it was not only the number of
troops it could send into the field that made its hostility
dangerous. It was partly the geographical position of the
country, which made it an excellent base for operations
against Prussia, but still more the alliance that was known to
subsist between the Elector (King Augustus III. of Poland) and
the Russian Court. It was probable that a Prussian invasion of
Saxony would be followed by a Russian invasion of Prussia.
Towards the end of May, the Austrian and Saxon army, 75,000
strong, crossed the Giant Mountains and descended upon
Silesia. The Austrians were again commanded by Prince Charles,
but the wise head of Traun was no longer there to guide him.
... The encounter took place at Hohenfriedberg [June 5], and
resulted in a complete victory for Prussia. The Austrians and
Saxons lost 9,000 killed and wounded, and 7,000 prisoners,
besides 66 cannons and 73 flags and standards. Four days after
the battle they were back again in Bohemia. Frederick
followed, not with the intention of attacking them again, but
in order to eat the country bare, so that it might afford no
sustenance to the enemy during the winter. For his own part he
was really anxious for peace. His resources were all but
exhausted, while Austria was fed by a constant stream of
English subsidies. As in the former war, England interposed
with her good offices, but without effect; Maria Theresa was
by no means disheartened by her defeat, and refused to hear of
peace till she had tried the chances of battle once more. On
Sept. 13 her husband was elected Emperor by seven votes out of
nine, the dissentients being the King of Prussia and the
Elector Palatine. This event raised the spirits of the
Empress-Queen, as Maria Theresa was henceforward called, and
opened a wider field for her ambition. She sent peremptory
orders to Prince Charles to attack Frederick before he retired
from Bohemia. A battle was accordingly fought at Sohr [Sept.
30], and again victory rested with the Prussians. The season
was now far advanced, and Frederick returned home expecting
that there would be no more fighting till after the winter.
Such however, was far from being the intention of his
enemies." A plan for the invasion of Brandenburg by three
Austrian and Saxon armies simultaneously, was secretly
concerted; but Frederick had timely warning of it and it was
frustrated by his activity and energy. On the 23d of November
he surprised and defeated Prince Charles at Hennersdorf. "Some
three weeks afterwards [Dec. 15] the Prince of Dessau defeated
a second Saxon and Austrian army at Kesselsdorf, a few miles
from Dresden. This victory completed the subjugation of Saxony
and put an end to the war. Three days after Kesselsdorf,
Frederick entered Dresden, and astonished everyone by the
graciousness of his behaviour and by the moderation of his
terms. From Saxony he exacted no cession of territory, but
merely a contribution of 1,000,000 thalers (£150,000) towards
the expenses of the war. From Austria he demanded a guarantee
of the treaty of Breslau, in return for which he agreed to
recognize Francis as Emperor. Peace was signed [at Dresden] on
Christmas Day."
F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years
War, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
T. Carlyle, History of Frederick II.,
book 15, chapter 3-15 (volume 4).
Lord Dover, Life of Frederick II.,
book 2, chapter 3-5 (volume 1).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745.
Overwhelming disasters in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (May).
Reverses in the Netherlands.
Battle of Fontenoy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (September-October).
The Consort of Maria Theresa elected and crowned Emperor.
Rise of the new House of Hapsburg-Lorraine.
Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of
Maria Theresa, was elected Emperor, at Frankfort, Sept. 13,
1745, and crowned Oct. 1, with the title of Francis I. "Thus
the Empire returned to the New House of Austria, that of
Hapsburg-Lorraine, and France had missed the principal object
for which she had gone to war." By the treaties signed at
Dresden, Dec. 25, between Prussia, Austria and Saxony,
Frederick, as Elector of Brandenburg, assented to and
recognized the election of Francis, against which he and the
Elector Palatine had previously protested.
T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1746-1747.
Further French conquests in the Netherlands.
Lombardy recovered.
Genoa won and lost.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
and ITALY; A. D. 1746-1747.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1748 (October).
Termination and results of the War of the Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.
The Seven Years War.
Since the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great of
Prussia, "he had cast off all reserve. In his extraordinary
Court at Potsdam this man of wit and war laughed at God, and
at his brother philosophers and sovereigns; he ill-treated
Voltaire, the chief organ of the new opinions; he wounded
kings and queens with his epigrams; he believed neither in the
beauty of Madam de Pompadour nor in the poetical genius of
the Abbé Bernis, Prime Minister of France. The Empress thought
the moment favourable for the recovery of Silesia; she stirred
up Europe, especially the queens; she persuaded the Queen of
Poland and the Empress of Russia; she paid court to the
mistress of Louis XV. The monstrous alliance of France with
the ancient state of Austria against a sovereign who
maintained the equilibrium of Germany united all Europe
against him. England alone supported him and gave him
subsidies. She was governed at that time by a gouty lawyer,
the famous William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, who raised
himself by his eloquence and by his hatred of the French.
England wanted two things; the maintenance of the balance of power
in Europe, and the destruction of the French and Spanish colonies.
{221}
Her griefs were serious; the Spaniards had ill-treated her
smugglers and the French wanted to prevent her from settling
on their territory in Canada. In India, La Bourdonnaie and his
successor Dupleix threatened to found a great empire in the
face of the English. As a declaration of war the English
confiscated 300 French ships (1756). The marvel of the war was
to see this little kingdom of Prussia, interposed between the
huge powers of Austria, France, and Russia, run from one to
the other, and defy them all. This was the second period of
the art of war. The unskillful adversaries of Frederick
thought that he owed all his success to the precision of the
manœuvres of the Prussian soldiers, to their excellent drill
and rapid firing. Frederick had certainly carried the soldier
machine to perfection. This was capable of imitation: the Czar
Peter III. and the Count of St. Germin created military
automatons by means of the lash. But they could not imitate
the quickness of his manœuvres; the happy arrangement of his
marches, which gave him great facility for moving and
concentrating large masses, and directing them on the weak
points of the enemy. In this terrible chase given by the large
unwieldy armies of the allies to the agile Prussians, one
cannot help noticing the amusing circumspection of the
Austrian tacticians and the stupid folly of the fine gentlemen
who led the armies of France. The Fabius of Austria, the sage
and heavy Daun, was satisfied with a war of positions; he
could not find encampments strong enough or mountains
sufficiently inaccessible; his stationary troops were always
beaten by Frederick. To begin with, he freed himself from the
enmity of Saxony. He did not hurt, he only disarmed her. He
struck his next blow in Bohemia. Repulsed by the Austrians,
and abandoned by the English army, which determined at
Kloster-seven to fight no more, threatened by the Russians,
who were victorious at Joegerndorf, he passed into Saxony and
found the French and Imperialists combined there. Prussia was
surrounded by four armies. Frederick fancied himself lost and
determined on suicide. He wrote to his sister and to d'Argens
announcing his intention. There was only one thing which
frightened him: it was, that when once he was dead the great
distributor of glory--Voltaire--might make free with his
name: he wrote an epistle to disarm him. ... Having written
this epistle he defeated the enemy at Rosbach. The Prince of
Soubise, who thought that he fled, set off rashly in pursuit;
then the Prussians unmasked their batteries, killed 3,000 men,
and took 7,000 prisoners. In the French camp were found an
army of cooks, actors, hair-dressers; a number of parrots,
parasols, and huge cases of lavender-water, &c. (1757). None
but a tactician could follow the King of Prussia in this
series of brilliant and skillful battles. The Seven Years'
War, however varied its incidents, was a political and
strategical war: it has not the interest of the wars for
ideas, the struggles for religion and for freedom of the 16th
century and of our own time. The defeat of Rosbach was
followed by another at Crevelt, and by great reverses balanced
by small advantages; the total ruin of the French navy and
colonies; the English masters of the ocean and conquerors of
India; the exhaustion and humiliation of old Europe in the
presence of young Prussia. This is the history of the Seven
Years War. It was terminated under the ministry of the Duke of
Choiseul," by the Peace of Hubertsburg and the Peace of Paris.
J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, pages 300-302.
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, to 1763;
and, also, SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1772-1773.
The First Partition of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
The question of the Bavarian Succession.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1782-1811.
Abolition of Serfdom.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1787-1791.
War with the Turks.
Treaty of Sistova.
Slight Acquisitions of Territory.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1790-1797.
Death of Joseph II. and Leopold II.
Accession of Francis II.
The Coalition against and war with revolutionary France, to
the Peace of Campo Formio.
"It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked
the Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked
them. The diplomatists of the 18th century viewed at first
with cynical indifference the meeting of the States-General at
Versailles. ... The two points which occupied the attention of
Europe in 1789 were the condition of Poland and the troubles
in the East. The ambitious designs of Catherine and the
assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the existence of
the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and awakened
English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety of
Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn
by long dissensions and mined by a miserable constitution, was
vainly endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great
neighbours, to avert the doom impending, and to reassert her
ancient claim to a place among the nations of the world. But
Russia had long since determined that Poland must be a vassal
State to her or cease to be a State at all, while Prussia,
driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong Poland
and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if
Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to
unity and greatness. These two questions to the States
involved seemed to be of far more moment than any political
reform in France, and engrossed the diplomatists of Europe
until the summer of 1791. In February, 1790, a new influence
was introduced into European politics by the death of the
Emperor Joseph and the accession of his brother, Leopold II.
Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no enthusiast and no
dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions of
Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian
statecraft, discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed,
quietly determined to have his own way, and generally skilful
enough to secure it. Leopold found his new dominions in a
state of the utmost confusion, with war and rebellion
threatening him on every side. He speedily set about restoring
order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph. He
conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He
gradually re-established the authority of the Crown. ...
Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were
occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of
that time his success was marked.
{222}
Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had been checked. War had
been averted. Poland had been strengthened by internal
changes. Prussia had been conciliated and outmanœuvred, and
her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of
August, 1791, the Emperor was free to face the French problem,
and he set out for the Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of
Prussia and the Emigrant leaders at the Saxon Elector's Court.
For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants
had been causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with
open arms by the ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the
Electors of Mayence and Trèves, they proceeded to agitate
busily for their own restoration. ... The object of the
Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the European
Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene
actively in their behalf. ... After his escape from France, in
June, 1790, the Comte de Provence established his Court at
Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother the Comte
d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner, he
claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of
King. The Court of the two French princes at Coblentz
represented faithfully the faults and follies of the Emigrant
party. But a more satisfactory spectacle was offered by the
camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely trying to organise an
army to fight against the Revolution in France. To Condé's
standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants. ... But the
German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on
the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and
it drew down on them the hostility of the French Government.
The Emperor joined them in protesting against it. In February,
1792, Condé's army was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms,
and to retire further into Germany. The Emperor was well aware
of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant princes. He had as
little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not intend to
listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all, it
would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order
to save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would
not undertake a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime.
... Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing.
... Early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died. His heir
Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation,
assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances
of any effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the
prospect of war rose on the horizon. Francis' language was
sufficiently sharp to give the Assembly the pretext which it
longed for, and on the 20th April, Louis, amid general
enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared war against
Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can
exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and
prepared the way for a military despotism in the future."
C. E. Mallet, The French Revolution, chapter 7.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
1791 (JULY-DECEMBER);
1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);
1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), and (JULY-DECEMBER);
1794 (MARCH-JULY);
1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1794-1796.
The Third partition of Poland.
Austrian share of the spoils.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1797 (October).
Treaty of Campo-Formio with France.
Cession of the Netherlands and Lombard provinces.
Acquisition of Venice and Venetian territories.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1798-1806.
Congress of Rastadt.
Second Coalition against France.
Peace of Luneville.
Third Coalition.
Ulm and Austerlitz.
Peace of Presburg.
Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
Birth of the Empire of Austria.
"When Bonaparte sailed for Egypt he had left a congress at
Rastadt discussing means for the execution of certain articles
in the treaty of Campo Formio which were to establish peace
between France and the Empire. ... Though openly undertaking
to invite the Germans to a congress in order to settle a
general peace on the basis of the integrity of the Empire, the
Emperor agreed in secret articles to use his influence to
procure for the Republic the left bank of the Rhine with the
exception of the Prussian provinces, to join with France in
obtaining compensation in Germany for those injured by this
change, and to contribute no more than his necessary
contingent if the war were prolonged. The ratification of
these secret provisions had been extorted from the Congress by
threats before Bonaparte had left; but the question of
indemnification had progressed no farther than a decision to
secularise the ecclesiastical states for the purpose, when
extravagant demands from the French deputies brought
negotiation to a deadlock. Meanwhile, another coalition war
had been brewing. Paul I. of Russia had regarded with little
pleasure the doings of the Revolution, and when his proteges,
the knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had been deprived of
Malta by Bonaparte on his way to Egypt, when the Directory
established by force of arms a Helvetic republic in
Switzerland, when it found occasion to carry off the Pope into
exile and erect a Roman republic, he abandoned the cautious
and self-seeking policy of Catherine, and cordially responded
to Pitt's advances for an alliance. At the same time Turkey
was compelled by the invitation of Egypt to ally itself for
once with Russia. Austria, convinced that the French did not
intend to pay a fair price for the treaty of Campo Formio,
also determined to renew hostilities; and Naples, exasperated
by the sacrilege of a republic at Rome, and alarmed by French
aggressiveness, enrolled itself in the league. The Neapolitan
king, indeed, opened the war with some success, before he
could receive support from his allies; but he was soon
vanquished by the French, and his dominions were converted
into a Parthenopean republic. Austria, on the contrary,
awaited the arrival of the Russian forces; and the general
campaign began early in 1799. The French, fighting against
such generals as the Archduke Charles and the Russian
Suvaroff, without the supervision of Carnot or the strategy
and enterprise of Bonaparte, suffered severe reverses and
great privations. Towards the end the Russian army endured
much hardship on account of the selfishness of the Austrian
cabinet; and this caused the Tsar, who thought he had other
reasons for discontent, to withdraw his troops from the field.
{223}
When Bonaparte was made First Consul the military position of
France was, nevertheless, very precarious. ... The Roman and
Cisalpine republics had fallen. The very congress at Rastadt
had been dispersed by the approach of the Austrians; and the
French emissaries had been sabred by Austrian troopers, though
how their insolence came to be thus foully punished has never
been clearly explained. At this crisis France was rescued from
foreign foes and domestic disorders by its most successful
general. ... In the campaign which followed, France obtained
signal satisfaction for its chagrin. Leaving Moreau to carry
the war into Germany, Bonaparte suddenly crossed the Alps, and
defeated the Austrians on the plain of Marengo. The Austrians,
though completely cowed, refrained from concluding a definite
peace out of respect for their engagements with England; and
armistices, expiring into desultory warfare, prolonged the
contest till Moreau laid the way open to Vienna, by winning a
splendid triumph at Hohenlinden. A treaty of peace was finally
concluded at Lunéville, when Francis II. pledged the Empire to
its provisions on the ground of the consents already given at
Rastadt. In conformity with the treaty of Campo Formio,
Austria retained the boundary of the Adige in Italy; France
kept Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine; and the princes,
dispossessed by the cessions, were promised compensation in
Germany; while Tuscany was given to France to sell to Spain at
the price of Parma, Louisiana, six ships of the line, and a
sum of money. Shortly afterwards peace was extended to Naples
on easy terms. ... The time was now come for the Revolution to
complete the ruin of the Holy Roman Empire. Pursuant to the
treaty of Lunéville, the German Diet met at Regensburg to
discuss a scheme of compensation for the dispossessed rulers.
Virtually the meeting was a renewal of the congress of
Rastadt. ... At Rastadt the incoherence and disintegration of
the venerable Empire had become painfully apparent. ... When
it was known that the head of the nation, who had guaranteed
the integrity of the Empire in the preliminaries of Leoben,
and had renewed the assurance when he convoked the assembly,
had in truth betrayed to the stranger nearly all the left bank
of the Rhine,--the German rulers greedily hastened to secure
every possible trifle in the scramble of redistribution. The
slow and wearisome debates were supplemented by intrigues of
the most degraded nature. Conscious that the French Consul
could give a casting vote on any disputed question, the
princes found no indignity too shameful, no trick too base, to
obtain his favour. ... The First Consul, on his side,
prosecuted with a duplicity and address, heretofore
unequalled, the traditional policy of France in German
affairs. ... Feigning to take into his counsels the young
Tsar, whose convenient friendship was thus easily obtained on
account of his family connections with the German courts, he
drew up a scheme of indemnification and presented it to the
Diet for endorsement. In due time a servile assent was given
to every point which concerned the two autocrats. By this
settlement, Austria and Prussia were more equally balanced
against one another, the former being deprived of influence in
Western Germany, and the latter finding in more convenient
situations a rich recompense for its cessions on the Rhine;
while the middle states, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg,
received very considerable accessions of territory. But if
Bonaparte dislocated yet further the political structure of
Germany, he was at least instrumental in removing the worst of
the anachronisms which stifled the development of improved
institutions among a large division of its people. The same
measure which brought German separatism to a climax, also
extinguished the ecclesiastical sovereignties and nearly all
the free cities. That these strongholds of priestly
obscurantism and bourgeois apathy would some day be invaded by
their more ambitious and active neighbours, had long been
apparent. ... And war was declared when thousands of British
subjects visiting France had already been ensnared and
imprisoned. ... Pitt had taken the conduct of the war out of
the hands of Addington's feeble ministry. Possessing the
confidence of the powers, he rapidly concluded offensive
alliances with Russia, Sweden, and Austria, though Prussia
obstinately remained neutral. Thus, by 1805, Napoleon had put
to hazard all his lately won power in a conflict with the
greater part of Europe. The battle of Cape Trafalgar crushed
for good his maritime power, and rendered England safe from
direct attack. The campaign on land, however, made him master
of central Europe. Bringing the Austrian army in Germany to an
inglorious capitulation at Ulm, he marched through Vienna,
and, with inferior forces won in his best style the battle of
Austerlitz against the troops of Francis and Alexander. The
action was decisive. The allies thought not of renewing the
war with the relays of troops which were hurrying up from
North and South. Russian and Austrian alike wished to be rid
of their ill-fated connection. The Emperor Alexander silently
returned home, pursued only by Napoleon's flattering tokens of
esteem; the Emperor Francis accepted the peace of Presburg,
which deprived his house of the ill-gotten Venetian States,
Tyrol, and its more distant possessions in Western Germany;
the King of Prussia, who had been on the point of joining the
coalition with a large army if his mediation were
unsuccessful, was committed to an alliance with the conqueror
by his terrified negotiator. And well did Napoleon appear to
make the fruits of victory compensate France for its
exertions. The empire was not made more unwieldy in bulk, but
its dependents, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, received
considerable accessions of territory, and the two first were
raised to the rank of kingdoms; while the Emperor's Italian
principality, which he had already turned into a kingdom of
Italy to the great disgust of Austria, was increased by the
addition of the ceded Venetian lands. But the full depth of
Europe's humiliation was not experienced till the two
following years. In 1806 an Act of Federation was signed by
the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and
thirteen minor princes, which united them into a league under
the protection of the French Emperor. The objects of this
confederacy, known as the Rheinbund were defence against
foreign aggression and the exercise of complete autonomy at
home. ... Already the consequences of the Peace of Lunéville
had induced the ruling Hapsburg to assure his equality with
the sovereigns of France and Russia by taking the imperial
title in his own right; and before the Confederation of the
Rhine was made public he formally renounced his office of
elective Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and released from
allegiance to him all the states and princes of the Reich, The
triumph of the German policy of the Consulate was complete."
A. Weir, The Historical Basis of Modern Europe, chapter 4.
See, also,
FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799, to 1805, and
GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803, to 1805-1806.
{224}
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1809-1814.
The second struggle with Napoleon and the second defeat.
The Marriage alliance.
The Germanic War of Liberation.
The final alliance and the overthrow of the Corsican.
"On the 12th of July, 1806, fourteen princes of the south and
west of Germany united themselves into the confederation of
the Rhine, and recognised Napoleon as their protector. On the
1st of August, they signified to the diet of Ratisbon their
separation from the Germanic body. The Empire of Germany
ceased to exist, and Francis II. abdicated the title by
proclamation. By a convention signed at Vienna, on the 15th of
December, Prussia exchanged the territories of Anspach, Cleves
and Neufchâtel for the electorate of Hanover, Napoleon had all
the west under his power. Absolute master of France and Italy,
as emperor and king, he was also master of Spain, by the
dependence of that court; of Naples and Holland, by his two
brothers; of Switzerland, by the act of mediation; and in
Germany he had at his disposal the kings of Bavaria and
Wurtemberg, and the confederation of the Rhine against Austria
and Prussia. ... This encroaching progress gave rise to the
fourth coalition. Prussia, neutral since the peace of Bâle,
had, in the last campaign, been on the point of joining the
Austro-Russian coalition. The rapidity of the emperor's
victories had alone restrained her; but now, alarmed at the
aggrandizement of the empire, and encouraged by the fine
condition of her troops, she leagued with Russia to drive the
French from Germany. ... The campaign opened early in October.
Napoleon, as usual, overwhelmed the coalition by the
promptitude of his marches and the vigour of his measures. On
the 14th of October, he destroyed at Jena the military
monarchy of Prussia, by a decisive victory. ... The campaign
in Poland was less rapid, but as brilliant as that of Prussia.
Russia, for the third time, measured its strength with France.
Conquered at Zurich and Austerlitz, it was also defeated at Eylau
and Friedland. After these memorable battles, the emperor
Alexander entered into a negotiation, and concluded at Tilsit,
on the 21st of June, 1807, an armistice which was followed by
a definitive treaty on the 7th of July. The peace of Tilsit
extended the French domination on the continent. Prussia was
reduced to half its extent. In the south of Germany, Napoleon
had instituted the two kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemberg
against Austria; further to the north, he created the two
feudatory kingdoms of Saxony and Westphalia against Prussia.
... In order to obtain universal and uncontested supremacy, he
made use of arms against the continent, and the cessation of
commerce against England. But in forbidding to the continental
states all communication with England, he was preparing new
difficulties for himself, and soon added to the animosity of
opinion excited by his despotism, and the hatred of states
produced by his conquering domination, the exasperation of
private interests and commercial suffering occasioned by the
blockade. ... The expedition of Portugal in 1807, and the
invasion of Spain in 1808, began for him and for Europe a new
order of events. ... The reaction manifested itself in three
countries, hitherto allies of France, and it brought on the
fifth coalition. The court of Rome was dissatisfied; the
peninsula was wounded in its national pride by having imposed
upon it a foreign king; in its usages, by the suppression of
convents, of the Inquisition, and of the grandees; Holland
suffered in its commerce from the blockade, and Austria
supported impatiently its losses and subordinate condition.
England, watching for an opportunity to revive the struggle on
the continent, excited the resistance of Rome, the peninsula,
and the cabinet of Vienna. ... Austria ... made a powerful
effort, and raised 550,000 men, comprising the Landwehr, and
took the field in the spring of 1809. The Tyrol rose, and King
Jerome was driven from his capital by the Westphalians: Italy
wavered; and Prussia only waited till Napoleon met with a
reverse, to take arms; but the emperor was still at the height
of his power and prosperity. He hastened from Madrid in the
beginning of February, and directed the members of the
confederation to keep their contingents in readiness. On the
12th of April he left Paris, passed the Rhine, plunged into
Germany, gained the victories of Eckmühl and Essling, occupied
Vienna a second time on the 15th of May and overthrew this new
coalition by the battle of Wagram, after a campaign of four
mouths. ... The peace of Vienna, of the 11th of October, 1809,
deprived the house of Austria of several more provinces, and
compelled it again to adopt the continental system. ...
Napoleon, who seemed to follow a rash but inflexible policy,
deviated from his course about this time by a second marriage.
He divorced Josephine that he might give an heir to the
empire, and married, on the 1st of April, 1810, Marie-Louise,
arch-duchess of Austria. This was a decided error. He quitted
his position and his post as a parvenu and revolutionary
monarch, opposing in France the ancient courts as the republic
had opposed the ancient governments. He placed himself in a
false situation with respect to Austria, which he ought either
to have crushed after the victory of Wagram, or to have
reinstated in its possessions after his marriage with the
arch-duchess. ... The birth, on the 20th of March, 1811, of a
son, who received the title of king of Rome, seemed to
consolidate the power of Napoleon, by securing to him a
successor. The war in Spain was prosecuted with vigour during
the years 1810 and 1811. ... While the war was proceeding in
the peninsula with advantage, but without any decided success,
a new campaign was preparing in the north. Russia perceived
the empire of Napoleon approaching its territories. ... About
the close of 1810, it increased its armies, renewed its
commercial relations with Great Britain, and did not seem
indisposed to a rupture. The year 1811 was spent in
negotiations which led to nothing, and preparations for war
were made on both sides. ... On the 9th of March, Napoleon
left Paris. ... During several months he fixed his court at
Dresden, where the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia,
and all the sovereigns of Germany, came to bow before his high
fortune.
{225}
On the 22nd of June, war was declared against Russia. ...
Napoleon, who, according to his custom, wished to finish all
in one campaign, advanced at once into the heart of Russia,
instead of prudently organizing the Polish barrier against it.
His army amounted to about 500,000 men. He passed the Niemen
on the 24th of June; took Wilna, and Witepsk, defeated the
Russians at Astrowno, Polotsk, Mohilow Smolensko, at the
Moskowa, and on the 14th of September, made his entry into
Moscow. ... Moscow was burned by its governor. ... The emperor
ought to have seen that this war would not terminate as the
others had done; yet, conqueror of the foe, and master of his
capital, he conceived hopes of peace which the Russians
skilfully encouraged. Winter was approaching, and Napoleon
prolonged his stay at Moscow for six weeks. He delayed his
movements on account of the deceptive negotiations of the
Russians; and did not decide on a retreat till the 19th of
October. This retreat was disastrous, and began the downfall
of the empire. ... The cabinet of Berlin began the defections.
On the 1st of March, 1813, it joined Russia and England, which
were forming the sixth coalition. Sweden acceded to it soon
after; yet the emperor, whom the confederate power thought
prostrated by the last disaster, opened the campaign with new
victories. The battle of Lutzen, won by conscripts, on the 2nd
of May, the occupation of Dresden; the victory of Bautzen, and
the war carried to the Elbe, astonished the coalition.
Austria, which, since 1810, had been on a footing of peace,
was resuming arms, and already meditating a change of
alliance. She now proposed herself as a mediatrix between the
emperor and the confederates. Her meditation was accepted; an
armistice was concluded at Plesswitz, on the 4th of June, and
a congress assembled at Prague to negotiate peace. It was
impossible to come to terms. ... Austria joined the coalition,
and war, the only means of settling this great contest, was
resumed. The emperor had only 280,000 men against 520,000.
.... Victory seemed, at first, to second him. At Dresden he
defeated the combined forces; but the defeats of his
lieutenants deranged his plans. ... The princes of the
confederation of the Rhine chose this moment to desert the
cause of the empire. A vast engagement having taken place at
Leipsic between the two armies, the Saxons and Wurtembergers
passed over to the enemy on the field of battle. This
defection to the strength of the coalesced powers, who had
learned a more compact and skilful mode of warfare, obliged
Napoleon to retreat, after a struggle of three days. ... The
empire was invaded in all directions. The Austrians entered
Italy; the English, having made themselves masters of the
peninsula during the last two years, had passed the Bidassoa,
under General Wellington, and appeared on the Pyrenees. Three
armies pressed on France to the east and north. ... Napoleon
was ... obliged to submit to the conditions of the allied
powers; their pretensions increased with their power. ... On
the 11th of April, 1814, he renounced for himself and children
the thrones of France and Italy, and received in exchange for
his vast sovereignty, the limits of which had extended from
Cadiz to the Baltic Sea, the little island of Elba."
F. A. Mignet, History of the French Revolution, chapter 15.
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE), to 1813;
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812 to 1814.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814.
Restored rule in Northern Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Treaties of Paris and Congress of Vienna.
Readjustment of French boundaries.
Recovery of the Tyrol from Bavaria and Lombardy in Italy.
Acquisition of the Venetian states.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE),
and 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER):
also VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1820.
Formation of the Germanic Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.
Return of Napoleon from Elba.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Waterloo Campaign and Its results.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1835.
Emperor Francis, Prince Metternich, and "the system."
"After the treaty of Vienna in 1809, and still more
conspicuously after the pacification of Europe, the political
wisdom of the rulers of Austria inclined them ever more and
more to the maintenance of that state of things which was
known to friends and foes as the System. But what was the
System? It was the organisation of do-nothing. It cannot even
be said to have been reactionary: it was simply reactionary.
... 'Mark time in place' was the word of command in every
government office. The bureaucracy was engaged from morning to
night in making work, but nothing ever came of it. Not even
were the liberal innovations which had lasted through the
reign of Leopold got rid of. Everything went on in the
confused, unfinished, and ineffective state in which the great
war had found it. Such was the famous System which was
venerated by the ultra-Tories of every land, and most
venerated where it was least understood. Two men dominate the
history of Austria during this unhappy time--men who, though
utterly unlike in character and intellect, were nevertheless
admirably fitted to work together, and whose names will be
long united in an unenviable notoriety. These were the Emperor
Francis and Prince Metternich. The first was the evil genius
of internal politics; the second exercised a hardly less
baneful influence over foreign affairs. ... For the external
policy of Prince Metternich, the first and most necessary
condition was, that Austria should give to Europe the
impression of fixed adherence to the most extreme Conservative
views. So for many years they worked together, Prince
Metternich always declaring that he was a mere tool in the
hands of his master, but in reality far more absolute in the
direction of his own department than the emperor was in his.
... Prince Metternich had the power of making the most of all
he knew, and constantly left upon persons of real merit the
impression that he was a man of lofty aspirations and liberal
views, who forced himself to repress such tendencies in others
because he thought that their repression was a sine quâ non for
Austria. The men of ability, who knew him intimately, thought
less well of him.
{226}
To them he appeared vain and superficial, with much that
recalled the French noblesse of the old régime in his way of
looking at things, and emphatically wanting in every element
of greatness. With the outbreak of the Greek insurrection in
1821, began a period of difficulty and complications for the
statesmen of Austria. There were two things of which they were
mortally afraid--Russia and the revolution. Now, if they
assisted the Greeks, they would be playing into the hands of
the second; and if they opposed the Greeks, they would be
likely to embroil themselves with the first. The whole art of
Prince Metternich was therefore exerted to keep things quiet
in the Eastern Peninsula, and to postpone the intolerable
'question d'Orient.' Many were the shifts he tried, and
sometimes, as just after the accession of Nicholas, his hopes
rose very high. All was, however, in vain. England and Russia
settled matters behind his back; and although the tone which
the publicists in his pay adopted towards the Greeks became
more favourable in 1826-7, the battle of Navarino was a sad
surprise and mortification to the wily chancellor. Not less
annoying was the commencement of hostilities on the Danube
between Russia and the Porte. The reverses with which the
great neighbour met in his first campaign cannot have been
otherwise than pleasing at Vienna. But the unfortunate success
which attended his arms in the second campaign soon turned
ill-dissembled joy into ill-concealed sorrow, and the treaty
of Adrianople at once lowered Austria's prestige in the East,
and deposed Metternich from the commanding position which he
had occupied in the councils of the Holy Allies. It became,
indeed, ever more and more evident in the next few years that
the age of Congress politics, during which he had been the
observed of all observers, was past and gone, that the
diplomatic period had vanished away, and that the military
period had begun. The very form in which the highest
international questions were debated was utterly changed. At
Vienna, in 1814, the diplomatists had been really the primary,
the sovereigns only secondary personages; while at the
interview of Münchengratz, between Nicholas and the Emperor
Francis, in 1833, the great autocrat appeared to look upon
Prince Metternich as hardly more than a confidential clerk.
The dull monotony of servitude which oppressed nearly the
whole of the empire was varied by the agitations of one of its
component parts. When the Hungarian Diet was dissolved in
1812, the emperor had solemnly promised that it should be
called together again within three years. Up to 1815,
accordingly, the nation went on giving extraordinary levies
and supplies without much opposition. When, however, the
appointed time was fulfilled, it began to murmur. ... Year by
year the agitation went on increasing, till at last the
breaking out of the Greek revolution, and the threatening
appearance of Eastern politics, induced Prince Metternich to
join his entreaties to those of many other counsellors, who
could not be suspected of the slightest leaning to
constitutional views. At length the emperor yielded, and in
1825 Presburg was once more filled with the best blood and
most active spirits of the land, assembled in parliament. Long
and stormy were the debates which ensued. Bitter was, from
time to time, the vexation of the emperor, and great was the
excitement throughout Hungary. In the end, however, the court
of Vienna triumphed. Hardly any grievances were redressed,
while its demands were fully conceded. The Diet of 1825 was,
however, not without fruit. The discussion which took place
advanced the political education of the people, who were
brought back to the point where they stood at the death of
Joseph II.--that is, before the long wars with France had
come to distract their attention from their own affairs. ...
The slumbers of Austria were not yet over. The System dragged
its slow length along. Little or nothing was done for the
improvement of the country. Klebelsberg administered the
finances in an easy and careless manner. Conspiracies and
risings in Italy were easily checked, and batches of prisoners
sent off from time to time to Mantua or Spielberg. Austrian
influence rose ever higher and higher in all the petty courts
of the Peninsula. ... In other regions Russia or England might
be willing to thwart him, but in Italy Prince Metternich might
proudly reflect that Austria was indeed a 'great power.' The
French Revolution of 1830 was at first alarming; but when it
resulted in the enthronement of a dynasty which called to its
aid a 'cabinet of repression,' all fears were stilled. The
Emperor Francis continued to say, when any change was
proposed, 'We must sleep upon it,' and died in 1835 in 'the
abundance of peace.'"
M. E. Grant Duff, Studies in European Politics,
pages 140-149.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
Gains of the Hapsburg monarchy.
Its aggressive absolutism.
Death of Francis I.
Accession of Ferdinand I.
Suppression of revolt in Galicia.
Extinction and annexation of the Republic of Cracow.
"In the new partition of Europe, arranged in the Congress of
Vienna [see VIENNA. THE CONGRESS OF], Austria received
Lombardy and Venice under the title of a Lombardo-Venetian
kingdom, the Illyrian provinces also as a kingdom, Venetian
Dalmatia, the Tirol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg, the Innviertel and
Hausrucksviertel, and the part of Galicia ceded by her at an
earlier period. Thus, after three and twenty years of war, the
monarchy had gained a considerable accession of strength,
having obtained, in lieu of its remote and unprofitable
possessions in the Netherlands, territories which consolidated
its power in Italy, and made it as great in extent as it had
been in the days of Charles VI., and far more compact and
defensible. The grand duchies of Modena, Parma, and Placentia,
were moreover restored to the collateral branches of the house
of Hapsburg. ... After the last fall of Napoleon ... the great
powers of the continent ... constituted themselves the
champions of the principle of absolute monarchy. The
maintenance of that principle ultimately became the chief
object of the so-called Holy Alliance established in 1816
between Russia, Austria and Prussia, and was pursued with
remarkable steadfastness by the Emperor Francis and his
minister, Prince Metternich [see HOLY ALLIANCE]. ...
Thenceforth it became the avowed policy of the chief
sovereigns of Germany to maintain the rights of dynasties in
an adverse sense to those of their subjects. The people, on
the other hand, deeply resented the breach of those promises
which had been so lavishly made to them on the general summons
to the war of liberation.
{227}
Disaffection took the place of that enthusiastic loyalty with
which they had bled and suffered for their native princes; the
secret societies, formed with the concurrence of their rulers,
for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the foreigner,
became ready instruments of sedition. ... In the winter of
1819, a German federative congress assembled at Vienna. In May
of the following year it published an act containing closer
definitions of the Federative Act, having for their essential
objects the exclusion of the various provincial Diets from all
positive interference in the general affairs of Germany, and
an increase of the power of the princes over their respective
Diets, by a guarantee of aid on the part of the confederates"
(see GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820). During the next three years,
the powers of the Holy Alliance, under the lead of Austria,
and acting under a concert established at the successive
congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona (see VERONA,
CONGRESS OF), interfered to put down popular risings against
the tyranny of government in Italy and Spain, while they
discouraged the revolt of the Greeks.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
"The commotions that pervaded Europe after the French
Revolution of 1830 affected Austria only in her Italian
dominions, and there but indirectly, for the imperial
authority remained undisputed in the Lombardo-Venetian
kingdom. But the duke of Modena and the archduke of Parma were
obliged to quit those states, and a formidable insurrection
broke out in the territory of the Church. An Austrian army of
18,000 men quickly put down the insurgents, who rose again,
however, as soon as it was withdrawn: The pope again invoked
the aid of Austria, whose troops entered Bologna in January,
1832, and established themselves there in garrison. Upon this,
the French immediately sent a force to occupy Ancona, and for
a while a renewal of the oft-repeated conflict between Austria
and France on Italian ground seemed inevitable; but it soon
appeared that France was not prepared to support the
revolutionary party in the pope's dominions, and that danger
passed away. The French remained for some years in Ancona, and
the Austrians in Bologna and other towns of Romagna. This was
the last important incident in the foreign affairs of Austria
previous to the death of the Emperor Francis I. on the 2nd of
March, 1835, after a reign of 43 years. ... The Emperor
Francis was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., whose
accession occasioned no change in the political or
administrative system of the empire. Incapacitated, by
physical and mental infirmity, from labouring as his father
had done in the business of the state, the new monarch left to
Prince Metternich a much more unrestricted power than that
minister had wielded in the preceding reign. ... The province
of Galicia began early in the new reign to occasion uneasiness
to the government. The Congress of Vienna had constituted the
city of Cracow an independent republic--a futile
representative of that Polish nationality which had once
extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. After the failure
of the Polish insurrection of 1831 against Russia, Cracow
became the focus of fresh conspiracies, to put an end to which
the city was occupied by a mixed force of Russians, Prussians,
and Austrians; the two former were soon withdrawn, but the
latter remained until 1840. When they also had retired, the
Polish propaganda was renewed with considerable effect. An
insurrection broke out in Galicia in 1846, when the scantiness
of the Austrian military force in the province seemed to
promise it success. It failed, however, as all previous
efforts of the Polish patriots had failed, because it rested
on no basis of popular sympathy. The nationality for which
they contended had ever been of an oligarchical pattern,
hostile to the freedom of the middle and lower classes. The
Galician peasants had no mind to exchange the yoke of Austria,
which pressed lightly upon them, for the feudal oppression of
the Polish nobles. They turned upon the insurgents and slew or
took them prisoners, the police inciting them to the work by
publicly offering a reward of five florins for every suspected
person delivered up by them, alive or dead. Thus the agents of
a civilized government became the avowed instigators of an
inhuman 'jacquerie.' The houses of the landed proprietors were
sacked by the peasants, their inmates were tortured and
murdered, and bloody anarchy raged throughout the land in the
prostituted name of loyalty. The Austrian troops at last
restored order; but Szela, the leader of the sanguinary
marauders, was thanked and highly rewarded in the name of his
sovereign. In the same year the three protecting powers,
Austria, Russia, and Prussia, took possession of Cracow, and,
ignoring the right of the other parties to the treaty of
Vienna to concern themselves about the fate of the republic,
they announced that its independence was annulled, and that
the city and territory of Cracow were annexed to, and forever
incorporated with, the Austrian monarchy. From this time forth
the political atmosphere of Europe became more and more loaded
with the presages of the storm that burst in 1848."
W. K. Kelly, Continuation of Coxe's History of the
House of Austria, chapter 5-6.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1849.
Arrangements in Italy of the Congress of Vienna.
Heaviness of the Austrian yoke.
The Italian risings.
"By the treaty of Vienna (1815), the ... entire kingdom of
Venetian-Lombardy was handed over to the Austrians; the
duchies of Modena, Reggio, with Massa and Carrara, given to
Austrian princes; Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to Napoleon's
queen, Maria Luisa, because she was an Austrian princess; the
grand-duchy of Tuscany to Ferdinand III. of Austria; the duchy
of Lucca to a Bourbon. Rome and the Roman states were restored
to the new Pope, Pius VII.; Sicily was united to Naples under
the Bourbons, and later deprived of her constitution, despite
the promised protection of England; the Canton Ticino, though
strictly Italian, annexed to the Swiss Confederation; the
little republic of St. Marino left intact, even as the
principality of Monaco. England retained Malta; Corsica was
left to France. Italy, so Metternich and Europe fondly hoped,
was reduced to a geographical expression. Unjust, brutal, and
treacherous as was that partition, at least it taught the
Italians that 'who would be free himself must strike the
blow.' It united them into one common hatred of Austria and
Austrian satellites. By substituting papal, Austrian, and
Bourbon despotism for the free institutions, codes, and
constitutions of the Napoleonic era, it taught them the
difference between rule and misrule.
{228}
Hence the demand of the Neapolitans during their first
revolution (1820) was for a constitution; that of the
Piedmontese and Lombards (1821) for a constitution and war
against Austria. The Bourbon swore and foreswore, and the
Austrians 'restored order' in Naples. The Piedmontese, who had
not concerted their movement until Naples was crushed--after
the abdication of Victor Emmanuel I., the granting of the
constitution by the regent Charles Albert, and its abrogation
by the new king Charles Felix--saw the Austrians enter
Piedmont, while the leaders of the revolution went out into
exile [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821]. But those revolutions and
those failures were the beginning of the end. The will to be
independent of all foreigners, the thirst for freedom, was
universal; the very name of empire or of emperor, was rendered
ridiculous, reduced to a parody--in the person of Ferdinand of
Austria. But one illusion remained--in the liberating virtues
of France and the French; this had to be dispelled by bitter
experience, and for it substituted the new idea of one Italy
for the Italians, a nation united, independent, free, governed
by a president or by a king chosen by the sovereign people.
The apostle of this idea, to which for fifty years victims and
martyrs were sacrificed by thousands, was Joseph Mazzini; its
champion, Joseph Garibaldi. By the genius of the former, the
prowess of the latter, the abnegation, the constancy, the
tenacity, the iron will of both, all the populations of Italy
were subjugated by that idea: philosophers demonstrated it,
poets sung it, pious Christian priests proclaimed it,
statesmen found it confronting their negotiations, baffling
their half-measures."
J. W. V. Mario, Introduction to Autobiography of
Garibaldi.-
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1848-1849.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1835.
Accession of the Emperor Ferdinand I.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1839-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
Quadruple Alliance.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848.
The Germanic revolutionary rising.
National Assembly at Frankfort.
Archduke John elected Administrator of Germany.
"When the third French Revolution broke out, its influence was
immediately felt in Germany. The popular movement this time
was very different from any the Governments had hitherto had
to contend with. The people were evidently in earnest, and
resolved to obtain, at whatever cost, their chief demands. ...
The Revolution was most serious in the two great German
States, Prussia and Austria. ... It was generally hoped that
union as well as freedom was now to be achieved by Germany;
but, as Prussia and Austria were in too much disorder to do
anything, about 500 Germans from the various States met at
Frankfurt, and on March 21 constituted themselves a
provisional Parliament. An extreme party wished the assembly
to declare itself permanent; but to this the majority would
not agree. It was decided that a National Assembly should be
elected forthwith by the German people. The Confederate Diet,
knowing that the provisional Parliament was approved by the
nation, recognized its authority. Through the Diet the various
Governments were communicated with, and all of them agreed to
make arrangements for the elections. ... The National Assembly
was opened in Frankfurt on May 18, 1848. It elected the
Archduke John of Austria as the head of a new provisional
central Government. The choice was a happy one. The Archduke
was at once acknowledged by the different governments, and on
July 12 the President of the Confederate Diet formally made
over to him the authority which had hitherto belonged to the
Diet. The Diet then ceased to exist. The Archduke chose from
the Assembly seven members, who formed a responsible ministry.
The Assembly was divided into two parties, the Right and the
Left. These again were broken up into various sections. Much
time was lost in useless discussions, and it was soon
suspected that the Assembly would not in the end prove equal
to the great task it had undertaken."
J. Sime, History of Germany, chapter 19, sections. 8-11.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848 (December).
Accession of the Emperor Francis Joseph I.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Revolutionary risings.
Bombardment of Prague and Vienna.
Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.
Accession of Francis Joseph.
The Hungarian struggle for independence.
"The rise of national feeling among the Hungarian, Slavonic,
and Italian subjects of the House of Hapsburg was not the only
difficulty of the Emperor Ferdinand I. Vienna was then the
gayest and the dearest centre of fashion and luxury in Europe,
but side by side with wealth there seethed a mass of wretched
poverty; and the protective trade system of Austria so
increased the price of the necessaries of life that
bread-riots were frequent. ... The university students were
foremost in the demand for a constitution and for the removal
of the rigid censorship of the press and of all books. So,
when the news came of the flight of Louis Philippe from Paris
[see FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848] the students as well
as the artisans of Vienna rose in revolt (March 13, 1848), the
latter breaking machinery and attacking the houses of
unpopular employers. A deputation of citizens clamoured for
the resignation of the hated Metternich: his house was burnt
down, and he fled to England. A second outbreak of the excited
populace (May 15, 1848), sent the Emperor Ferdinand in
helpless flight to Innsprück in Tyrol; but he returned when
they avowed their loyalty to his person, though they detested
the old bureaucratic system. Far more complicated, however,
were the race jealousies of the Empire. The Slavs of Bohemia
... had demanded of Ferdinand the union of Bohemia, Moravia,
and Austrian Silesia in Estates for those provinces, and that
the Slavs should enjoy equal privileges with the Germans.
After an unsatisfactory answer had been received, they
convoked a Slavonic Congress at Prague. ... But while this
Babel of tongues was seeking for a means of fusion, Prince
Windischgrätz was assembling Austrian troops around the
Bohemian capital. Fights in the streets led to a bombardment
of the city, which Windischgrätz soon entered in triumph. This
has left a bitterness between the Tsechs or Bohemians and the
Germans which still divides Bohemia socially and politically.
... The exciting news of the spring of 1848 had made the hot
Asiatic blood of the Magyars boil; yet even Kossuth and the
democrats at first only demanded the abolition of Metternich's
system in favour of a representative government. ...
{229}
Unfortunately Kossuth claimed that the Magyar laws and
language must now be supreme, not only in Hungary proper, but
also in the Hungarian 'crown lands' of Dalmatia, Croatia, and
Slavonia, and the enthusiastic Magyars wished also to absorb
the ancient principality of Transylvania; but this again was
stoutly resisted by the Roumanians, Slavs, and Saxons of that
little known corner of Europe, and their discontent was fanned
by the court of Vienna. Jellachich, the Ban or Governor of
Croatia, headed this movement, which aimed at making Agram the
capital of the southern Slavs. Their revolt against the
Hungarian ministry of Batthyanyi was at first disavowed in
June, 1848, but in October was encouraged, by the perfidious
government of Vienna. A conference between Batthyanyi and
Jellachich ended with words of defiance: 'Then we must meet on
the Drave,' said the Hungarian. 'No, on the Danube,' retorted
the champion of the Slavs. The vacillating Ferdinand annulled
his acceptance of the new Hungarian constitution and declared
Jellachich dictator of Hungary. His tool was unfortunate.
After crossing the Drave, the Slavs were defeated by the brave
Hungarian 'honveds' (defenders); and as many as 9,000 were
made prisoners. Unable to subdue Hungary, Jellachich turned
aside towards Vienna to crush the popular party there. For the
democrats, exasperated by the perfidious policy of the
government, had, on October 6, 1848, risen a third time: the
war-minister, Latour, had been hanged on a lamp-post, and the
emperor again fled from his turbulent capital to the
ever-faithful Tyrolese. But now Jellachich and Windischgrätz
bombarded the rebellious capital. It was on the point of
surrendering when the Hungarians appeared to aid the city; but
the levies raised by the exertions of Kossuth were this time
outmanœuvred [and defeated] by the imperialists at Schwechat
(October 30, 1848), and on the next day Vienna surrendered.
Blum, a delegate from Saxony [to the German Parliament of
Frankfort, who had come on a mission of mediation to Vienna,
but who had taken a part in the fighting], and some other
democrats, were shot. By this clever but unscrupulous use of
race jealousy the Viennese Government seemed to have overcome
Bohemians, Italians, Hungarians, and the citizens of its own
capital in turn; while it had diverted the southern Slavonians
from hostility to actual service on its side. ... The weak
health and vacillating spirit of Ferdinand did not satisfy the
knot of courtiers of Vienna, who now, flushed by success,
sought to concentrate all power in the Viennese Cabinet. Worn
out by the excitements of the year and by the demands of these
men, Ferdinand, on December 2, 1848, yielded up the crown, not
to his rightful successor, his brother, but to his nephew,
Francis Joseph. He, a youth of eighteen, ascended the throne
so rudely shaken, and still, in spite of almost uniform
disaster in war, holds sway over an empire larger and more
powerful than he found it in 1848. The Hungarians refused to
recognise the young sovereign thus forced upon them; and the
fact that he was not crowned at Presburg with the sacred iron
crown of St. Stephen showed that he did not intend to
recognise the Hungarian constitution. Austrian troops under
Windischgrätz entered Buda-Pesth, but the Hungarian patriots
withdrew from their capital to organize a national resistance;
and when the Austrian Government proclaimed the Hungarian
constitution abolished and the complete absorption of Hungary
in the Austrian Empire, Kossuth and his colleagues retorted by
a Declaration of Independence (April 24, 1849). The House of
Hapsburg was declared banished from Hungary, which was to be a
republic. Kossuth, the first governor of the new republic, and
Görgei, its general, raised armies which soon showed their
prowess." The first important battle of the war had been
fought at Kapolna, on the right bank of the Theiss, on the
26th of February, 1849, Görgei and Dembinski commanding the
Hungarians and Windischgrätz leading the Austrians. The latter
won the victory, and the Hungarians retreated toward the
Theiss. About the middle of March, Görgei resumed the
offensive, advancing toward Pesth, and encountered the
Austrians at Isaszeg, where he defeated them in a hard-fought
battle,--or rather in two battles which are sometimes called
by different names: viz., that of Tapio Biscke fought April
4th, and that of Godolo, fought on the 5th. It was now the
turn of the Austrians to fall back, and they concentrated
behind the Rakos, to cover Pesth. The Hungarian general passed
round their left, carried Waitzen by storm, forced them to
evacuate Pesth and to retreat to Presburg, abandoning the
whole of Hungary with the exception of a few fortresses, which
they held. The most important of these fortresses, that of
Buda, the "twin-city," opposite Pesth on the Danube, was
besieged by the Hungarians and carried by storm on the 21st of
May. "In Transylvania, too, the Hungarians, under the talented
Polish general Bem, overcame the Austrians, Slavonians, and
Roumanians in many brilliant encounters. But the proclamation
of a republic had alienated those Hungarians who had only
striven for their old constitutional rights, so quarrels arose
between Görgei and the ardent democrat Kossuth. Worse still,
the Czar Nicholas, dreading the formation of a republic near
his Polish provinces sent the military aid which Francis
Joseph in May 1849 implored. Soon 80,000 Russians under
Paskiewitch poured over the northern Carpathians to help the
beaten Austrians, while others overpowered the gallant Bem in
Transylvania. Jellachich with his Croats again invaded South
Hungary, and Haynau, the scourge of Lombardy, marched on the
strongest Hungarian fortress, Komorn, on the Danube." The
Hungarians, overpowered by the combination of Austrians and
Russians against them, were defeated at Pered, June 21; at
Acz, July 3; at Komorn, July 11; at Waitzen, July 16; at
Tzombor, July 20; at Segesvar, July 31; at Debreczin, August
2; at Szegedin, August 4; at Temesvar, August 10. "In despair
Kossuth handed over his dictatorship to his rival Görgei, who
soon surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the
Russians (August 13, 1849). About 5,000 men with Kossuth, Bem,
and other leaders, escaped to Turkey. Even there Russia and
Austria sought to drive them forth; but the Porte, upheld by
the Western Powers, maintained its right to give sanctuary
according to the Koran. Kossuth and many of his fellow-exiles
finally sailed to England [and afterwards to America], where
his majestic eloquence aroused deep sympathy for the afflicted
country. Many Hungarian patriots suffered death. All rebels had
their property confiscated and the country was for years ruled
by armed force, and its old rights were abolished."
J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter
31.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-1852, chapter 55.
A. Görgei, My Life and Acts in Hungary.
General Klapka, Memoirs of the War of Independence in
Hungary.
Count Hartig, Genesis of the Revolution in Austria.
W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-49.
{230}
AUSTRIA: A. D.1848-1849.
Revolt in Lombardy and Venetia.
War with Sardinia.
Victories of Radetzky.
Italy vanquished again.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1850.
Failure of the movement for Germanic national unity.
End of the Frankfort Assembly.
"Frankfort had become the centre of the movement. The helpless
Diet had acknowledged the necessity of a German parliament,
and had summoned twelve men of confidence charged with drawing
up a new imperial constitution. But it was unable to supply
what was most wanted--a strong executive. ... Instead of
establishing before all a strong executive able to control and
to realise its resolutions, the Assembly lost months in
discussing the fundamental rights of the German people, and
thus was overhauled by the events. In June, Prince
Windischgraetz crushed the insurrection at Prague; and in
November the anarchy which had prevailed during the whole
summer at Berlin was put down, when Count Brandenburg became
first minister. ... Schwarzenberg [at Vienna] declared as soon
as he had taken the reins, that his programme was to maintain
the unity of the Austrian empire, and demanded that the whole
of it should enter into the Germanic confederation. This was
incompatible with the federal state as contemplated by the
National Assembly, and therefore Gagern, who had become
president of the imperial ministry [at Frankfort], answered
Schwarzenberg's programme by declaring that the entering of
the Austrian monarchy with a majority of non-German
nationalities into the German federal state was an
impossibility. Thus nothing was left but to place the king of
Prussia at the head of the German state. But in order to win a
majority for this plan Gagern found it necessary to make large
concessions to the democratic party, amongst others universal
suffrage. This was not calculated to make the offer of the
imperial crown acceptable to Frederic William IV., but his
principal reason for declining it was, that he would not
exercise any pressure on the other German sovereigns, and
that, notwithstanding Schwarzenberg's haughty demeanour, he
could not make up his mind to exclude Austria from Germany.
After the refusal of the crown by the king, the National
Assembly was doomed; it had certainly committed great faults,
but the decisive reason of its failure was the lack of a clear
and resolute will in Prussia. History, however, teaches that
great enterprises, such as it was to unify an empire
dismembered for centuries, rarely succeed at the first
attempt. The capital importance of the events of 1848 was that
they had made the German unionist movement an historical fact;
it could never be effaced from the annals, that all the German
governments had publicly acknowledged that tendency as
legitimate, the direction for the future was given, and even
at the time of failure it was certain, as Stockmar said, that
the necessity of circumstances would bring forward the man
who, profiting by the experiences of 1848, would fulfil the
national aspirations."
F. H. Geffcken, The Unity of Germany (English Historical
Revised, April, 1891).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.
The Return to pure Absolutism.
Bureaucracy triumphant.
"The two great gains which the moral earthquake of 1848
brought to Austria were, that through wide provinces of the
Empire, and more especially in Hungary, it swept away the sort
of semi-vassalage in which the peasantry had been left by the
Urbarium of Maria Theresa [an edict which gave to the peasants
the right of moving from place to place, and the right of
bringing up their children as they wished, while it
established in certain courts the trial of all suits to which
they were parties], and other reforms akin to or founded upon
it, and introduced modern in the place of middle-age relations
between the two extremes of society. Secondly, it overthrew
the policy of do-nothing--a surer guarantee for the
continuance of abuses than even the determination, which soon
manifested itself at headquarters, to make the head of the
state more absolute than ever. After the taking of Vienna by
Windischgrätz, the National Assembly had, on the 15th of
November 1848, been removed from the capital to the small town
of Kremsier, in Moravia. Here it prolonged all ineffective
existence till March 1849, when the court camarilla felt
itself strong enough to put an end to an inconvenient censor,
and in March 1849 it ceased to exist. A constitution was at
the same time promulgated which contained many good
provisions, but which was never heartily approved by the
ruling powers, or vigorously carried into effect--the
proclamation of a state of siege in many cities, and other
expedients of authority in a revolutionary period, easily
enabling it to be set at naught. The successes of the reaction
in other parts of Europe, and, above all, the coup d'état in
Paris, emboldened Schwartzenberg to throw off the mask; and on
the last day of 1851 Austria became once more a pure
despotism. The young emperor had taken 'Viribus unitis' for
his motto; and his advisers interpreted those words to mean
that Austria was henceforward to be a state as highly
centralised as France--a state in which the minister at Vienna
was absolutely to govern everything from Salzburg to the Iron
Gate. The hand of authority had been severely felt in the
pre-revolutionary period, but now advantage was to be taken of
the revolution to make it felt far more than ever. In Hungary,
for example, ... it was fondly imagined that there would be no
more trouble. The old political division into counties was
swept away; the whole land was divided into five provinces;
and the courtiers might imagine that from henceforth the
Magyars would be as easily led as the inhabitants of Upper
Austria. These delusions soon became general, but they owed
their origin partly to the enthusiastic ignorance of those who
were at the head of the army, and partly to two men"--Prince
Schwartzenberg and Alexander Bach. Of the latter, the "two
leading ideas were to cover the whole empire with a German
bureaucracy, and to draw closer the ties which connected the
court of Vienna with that of Rome.
{231}
... If absolutism in Austria had a fair trial from the 31st of
December 1851 to the Italian war, it is to Bach that it was
owing; and if it utterly and ludicrously failed, it is he more
than any other man who must bear the blame. Already, in 1849,
the bureaucracy had been reorganised, but in 1852 new and
stricter regulations were introduced. Everything was
determined by precise rules--even the exact amount of hair
which the employee was permitted to wear upon his face. Hardly
any question was thought sufficiently insignificant to be
decided upon the spot. The smallest matters had to be referred
to Vienna. .... We can hardly be surprised that the great ruin
of the Italian war brought down with a crash the whole edifice of
the reaction."
M. E. G. Duff, Studies in European Politics, chapter 3.
ALSO IN: L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 33.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853.
Commercial Treaty with the German Zollverein.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853-1856.
Attitude in the Crimean War.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1856-1859.
The war in Italy with Sardinia and France.
Reverses at Magenta and Solferino.
Peace of Villafranca.
Surrender of Lombardy.
"From the wars of 1848-9 the King of Sardinia was looked upon
by the moderate party as the champion of Italian freedom.
Charles Albert had failed: yet his son would not, and indeed
could not, go back, though, when he began his reign, there
were many things against him. ... Great efforts were made to
win him over to the Austrian party, but the King was neither
cast down by defeat and distrust nor won over by soft words.
He soon showed that, though he had been forced to make a
treaty with Austria, yet he would not cast in his lot with the
oppression of Italy. He made Massimo d'Azeglio his chief
Minister, and Camillo Benso di Cavour his Minister of
Commerce. With the help of these two men he honestly carried
out the reforms which had been granted by his father, and set
new ones on foot. ... The quick progress of reform frightened
Count Massimo d'Azeglio. He retired from office in 1853, and
his place was taken by Count Cavour, who made a coalition with
the democratic party in Piedmont headed by Urbano Rattazzi.
The new chief Minister began to work not only for the good of
Piedmont but for Italy at large. The Milanese still listened
to the hopes which Mazzini held out, and could not quietly
hear their subjection. Count Cavour indignantly remonstrated
with Radetzky for his harsh government. ... The division and
slavery of Italy had shut her out from European politics.
Cavour held that, if she was once looked upon as an useful
ally, then her deliverance might be hastened by foreign
interference. The Sardinian army had been brought into good
order by Alfonso della Marmora; and was ready for action. In
1855, Sardinia made alliance with England and France, who were
at war with Russia; for Cavour looked on that power as the
great support of the system of despotism on the Continent, and
held that it was necessary for Italian freedom that Russia
should be humbled. The Sardinian army was therefore sent to
the Crimea, under La Marmora, where it did good service in the
battle of Tchernaya. ... The next year the Congress of Paris
was held to arrange terms of peace between the allies and
Russia, and Cavour took the opportunity of laying before the
representatives of the European powers the unhappy state of
his countrymen. ... In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon
Buonaparte, the President of the French Republic, seized the
government, and the next year took the title of Emperor of the
French. He was anxious to weaken the power of Austria, and at
the beginning of 1859 it became evident that war would soon
break out. As a sign of the friendly feeling of the French
Emperor towards the Italian cause, his cousin, Napoleon
Joseph, married Clotilda, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel.
Count Cavour now declared that Sardinia would make war on
Austria, unless a separate and national government was granted
to Lombardy and Venetia, and unless Austria promised to meddle
no more with the rest of Italy. On the other hand, Austria
demanded the disarmament of Sardinia. The King would not
listen to this demand, and France and Sardinia declared war
against Austria. The Emperor Napoleon declared that he would
free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic. ... The Austrian
army crossed the Ticino, but was defeated by the King and
General Cialdini. The French victory of Magenta, on June 4th
forced the Austrians to retreat from Lombardy. ... On June
24th the Austrians, who had crossed the Mincio, were defeated
at Solferino by the allied armies of France and Sardinia. It
seemed as though the French Emperor would keep his word. But
he found that if he went further, Prussia would take up the
cause of Austria, and that he would have to fight on the Rhine
as well as on the Adige. When, therefore, the French army came
before Verona, a meeting was arranged between the two
Emperors. This took place at Villafranca, and there
Buonaparte, without consulting his ally, agreed with Francis
Joseph to favour the establishment of an Italian
Confederation. ...Austria gave up to the King of Sardinia
Lombardy to the west of Mincio. But the Grand Duke of Tuscany
and the Duke of Modena were to return to their States. The
proposed Confederation was never made, for the people of
Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna sent to the King to pray
that they might be made part of his Kingdom, and Victor
Emmanuel refused to enter on the scheme of the French Emperor.
In return for allowing the Italians of Central Italy to shake
off the yoke, Buonaparte asked for Savoy and Nizza. ... The
King ... consented to give up the 'glorious cradle of his
Monarchy' in exchange for Central Italy."
W. A. Hunt, History of Italy, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
J. W. Probyn, Italy from 1815 to 1890, chapter 9-10.
C. de Mazade, Life of Count Cavour, chapter 2-7.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1862-1866.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
Quarrel with Prussia.
The humiliating Seven Weeks War.
Conflict with Prussia grew out of the complicated
Schleswig-Holstein question, reopened in 1862 and
provisionally settled by a delusive arrangement between
Prussia and Austria, into which the latter was artfully drawn
by Prince Bismarck.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
{232}
No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed
that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies
to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in
1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia
sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack
Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated
the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D.
1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in
Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the
Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover.
The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with
the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should
march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push
on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to
enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the
King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the
second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced
across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at
Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They
were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General
Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. ... As in the
wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals ...
never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did
indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he
found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated,
and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him.
The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated
an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of
Gitschin on Königgrätz. ... The Prussians pushed on, and now
the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz,
whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing
on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is
crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy
ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north
of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character
dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. ... But about Chlum,
Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek
planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against
the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the
centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The
battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning,
by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army
upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle
raged most fiercely. ... Two things were against the
Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and,
secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had
what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired
by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they
can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders
used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is
called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa
(o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously
pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of
Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the
Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to
terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a
crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at
Prague."
S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, pages 390-394.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866.
The War in Italy.
Loss of Venetia.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
Concession of nationality to Hungary.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.
"For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased
from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme
in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian
institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the
German tongue being declared the exclusive language of
official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was
carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials.
No vestige was left, not only of the national independence,
but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the
country was divided into provinces without regard for
historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe
out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary.
All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to
these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the
sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the
enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary
Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the
short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. ...
Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in
consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of
the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again
convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and
resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial
Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat
incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the
futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in
which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into
due consideration--an arrangement was concluded under the
auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on
the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national
existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal
rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give
way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an
indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common
rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of
Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government,
and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with
slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in
1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management
of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary
for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the
entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers
were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal
committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the
Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were
framed for the smooth working of these common institutions,
for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in
matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and
Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility
to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality.
{233}
The financial questions pending in the two independent and
equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken
for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise
in relation to interests touching both States, such as
duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on
these subjects taking place by means of identical laws
separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. ...
Simultaneously with these arrangements the political
differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by
granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. ... Thus the
organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of
dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two
halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of
defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent
into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies
of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of
Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its
unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."
A. Pulszky, Hungary (National Life and Thought,
lecture 3).
"The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a
committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of
whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true
patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the
revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of
the rights of his country. ... On the 8th of June [1867], the
emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth.
On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions
of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard
to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified
some portions of the laws of 1848. ... Since the Ausgleich the
empire has consisted of two parts. ... For the sake of
clearness, political language has been increased by the
invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania,
to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by
a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha--a stream
which never expected to become so celebrated."
L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 35.
ALSO IN:
Francis Deák, A Memoir, chapter 26-31.
Count von Beust, Memoirs, volume 2, chapter 38.
L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 5.
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Its new national life.
Its difficulties and promises.
Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.
"Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm
than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always
does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that
it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living
evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the
campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign
domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making
a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over
which she presides. It does not require much insight to
perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this
fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the
German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests
impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns,
the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these to
command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible
for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual
understanding with a population which felt itself
attracted--alike by the ties of race, language, and
geographical position--to another political union. Nay more,
as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as
a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the
Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its
subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two
difficulties--the relations with Germany and the relations
with Italy--were swept away. From this time forward Austria
could appear before the world as a Power binding together for
the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of
which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In
short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas
before she had none. ... Baron Beust, on the 7th of February,
1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be
stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and
imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal
Constitution in the world would never reconcile the
nationalities to their present position, as provinces under
the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the
question--Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable,
how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm
the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an
almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus
obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining
provinces by building up a new system of free government. It
would be out of place to give a detailed account of the
well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into
the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary,
however, to describe the additions made to it by the political
machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same
principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth,
as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own
responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and
Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty
delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent
Hungarian interests--twenty being taken in each case from the
Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,'
whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively,
though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the
difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly,
and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were
competent in matters of foreign policy, in military
administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood
three Imperial ministers--the Reichskanzler, who presided at
the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the
Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three
ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag,
and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on
the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of
federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism,
both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be
borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a
retrogression.
{234}
At a time in which all other European nations--notably North
Germany--were simplifying and unifying their political
systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. ... The
true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867
was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was
not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but
the pacification of Hungary. ... The internal history of the
two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf
Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task
before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first
place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more
assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true
that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000
inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all
the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they
formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority,
under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to
range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great
advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her
government was not bound by the traditional policy of former
Vienna ministries, and ... it had managed to keep its
financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who
are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary
institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed
the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be
credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is
mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented
representative government, and claim this glory for
themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the
Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for
Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."--Austria since Sadowa
(Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95).--"It is difficult
for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the
difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has,
as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets.
The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no
difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other
districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself
crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him
to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by
the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend
himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and
of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to
continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and
Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient
kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the
election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite
kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz
Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to
have its separate Ministry and its separate official language,
and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the
so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an
ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of
Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of
Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And
if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or
a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are
not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are
gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly
of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats
complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not
ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech
population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom.
Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia
may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on
the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia
on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the
most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to
call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and
the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it
is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be
strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the
Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining
ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the
integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our
survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much
better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its
Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name),
its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and,
although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria,
Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with
which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality
of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for
trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present
highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar
rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally
detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the
Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers,
inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen.
Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes
unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an
executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume
and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races,
there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to
about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There
are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans
and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars
only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between
five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories
of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000
of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races--Germans,
Jews, and Magyars--while between three and four millions of
Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as
being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult
to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things
which these figures reveal."
The Present Position of European Polities (Fortnightly
Review, April, 1887).
{235}
"In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound
between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired
to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her
eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every
interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was
thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after
the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of
Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866,
she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at
the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order
to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential
for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of
Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and
obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should
encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If,
in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860,
and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas
and interests which had then taken place in the policy of
France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly
constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and
influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire,
and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then
threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that
Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced
to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour
some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian
statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and,
impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased
carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the
policy here indicated. Their objects have already been
partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was
striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment
this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian
section of the empire. ... Russia has never made any secret of
her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once
openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria
remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at
present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so
commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that,
once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by
Austria on the flank and rear. ... And if this be true now,
how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her
march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some
time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for
almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to
commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She
must further consolidate and make certain of what she has.
Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or
death--a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no
unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a
bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies
in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population
thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is
doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the
not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria,
and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for
ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with
the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic
military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to
suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on
her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should
occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than
madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably
for her."
V. Caillard, The Bulgarian Imbroglio (Fortnightly
Review, December, 1885).
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878.
The Treaty of Berlin.
Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
----------AUSTRIA: End----------
AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
AUTERI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
AUTUN: Origin.
See GAULS.
AUTUN: A. D. 287.
Sacked by the Bagauds.
See BAGAUDS.
----------AUTUN: End----------
AUVERGNE, Ancient.
The country of the Arverni.
See ÆDUI;
also GAULS.
AUVERGNE, The Great Days of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
AUXILIUM.
See TALLAGE.
AVA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
AVALON.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
and MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
AVARICUM.
See BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.
AVARS, The.
The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful
Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide
dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was
one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni,
or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the
nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national
family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth
century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center
of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their
first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost
annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the
Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity
to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their
wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they
turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense
exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which
inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset;
for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned
everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred
origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of
the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants,
established themselves in the wide plains which stretch
between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect
information they were naturally enough confounded with the
greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known
to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had
broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force
to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the
Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true
barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the
mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the
terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The
pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by
Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east
of the Black Sea.
{236}
They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the
Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The
important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate
siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages
extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were
beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through
Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the
Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than
once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by
Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628),
with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of
their Empire was the Dacian country--modern Roumania,
Transylvania and part of Hungary--in which the Avars had
helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The
Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers
into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in
subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and
peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an
imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated
intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar
conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme
for the most degraded servitude."
J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.
ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, chapter 42.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
AVARS: 7th Century.
The Slavic Revolt.
The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the
Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed
Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank
merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king.
The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the
Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to
be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar
warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead
of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars
to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection
with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the
Serbs or Servians and Croats--Slavic tribes of the same race
and region--to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year
630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer
mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of
Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine.
It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of
history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and
Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of
European nations."
J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.
AVARS: A. D. 791-805.
Conquest by Charlemagne.
"Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who,
joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes,
accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and
their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other
nations of Europe. ... They extended their limits towards
Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. ... Much
of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a
struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous
nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This
was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom
they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke
of Bavaria, Tassilo,--most obstinate of all who resisted the
Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of
vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed
the power of the Avars and took possession of their country.
The royal "ring" or stronghold--believed to have been situated
in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the
Theiss--was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was
seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to
churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his
own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been
made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and
wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated
people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land
between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube,
where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies.
This was the end of the Avar nation.
G. P. R. James, History of Charlemagne, books 9 and 11.
ALSO IN: J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 7.
----------AVARS: End----------
AVARS, The Rings of the.
The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and
effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They
seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts,
constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being
called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the
valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their
expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was
somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were
driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The
intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of
chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and
summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees
and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable
hedge."
J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 9.
AVEBURY.
See ABURY.
AVEIN, Battle of (1635).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
AVENTINE, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
AVERNUS, Lake and Cavern.
A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an
extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of
Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations
among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus
called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there
who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and,
having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned
whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and
doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having
answered the questions, went off."
Maximus Tyrius, quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece,
Ancient and Modern, c. 2, lecture 9.
See, also, CUMÆ: AND BAIÆ.
AVERYSBORO, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH:
THE CAROLINAS).
AVIGNON: 10th Century.
In the Kingdom of Arles.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1226.
Siege by Louis VIII.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
{237}
AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348.
Made the seat of the Papacy.
Purchase of the city by Clement V.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1367-1369.
Temporary return of Urban V. to Rome.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417.
Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome.
Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.
See PAPACY: A. D.1377-1417.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution and Anarchy.
Atrocities committed.
Reunion with France decreed.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
AVIGNON: A. D. 1797.
Surrendered to France by the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D: 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
AVIGNON: A. D. 1815.
Possession by France confirmed.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------AVIGNON: End----------
AVIONES, The.
"The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by
Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini,
Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These
tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being
their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define
their precise localities."
A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Minor Works of
Tacitus, Geographical Notes to the Germany.
AVIS, The House of.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.
AVIS, Knights of.
This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated
about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly
observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became
connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received
from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III.
united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.
F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.
See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
AVITUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455-456.
AVVIM, The.
The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan,
from which they were driven by the Philistines.
H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.
AYACUCHO, Battle of (1824).
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
AYLESFORD, Battle of (A. D. 455).
The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after
their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was
fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
AYMARAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.
See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
AZINCOUR (AGINCOURT), Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
AZOF OR AZOV: A. D. 1696.
Taken by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
AZOF: A. D. 1711.
Restoration to the Turks.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739.
Captured by the Russians.
Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
----------AZOF: End----------
AZTEC.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT; and A. D. 1325-1502;
also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.
AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.
"No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It
was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They
[the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse
paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of
maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one
of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15
inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled,
but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that
on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden
boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the
whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as
if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They
also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment
with these devices. ... What is still more astonishing, there
is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were
not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood
on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was
probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In
these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic
notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and
represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not
connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which
this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is
a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages
it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which
it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time--the
writing of proper names. For example, the English family
Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a
'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned
in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent,
coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' ... As a syllable
could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it,
as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some
change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic
value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as
universally the attention of the artist was directed less to
the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the
Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed
book to us, and must remain so in great part. ... Immense
masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives
of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone
yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less
than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed.
Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these
memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough
remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of
Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a
sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had
we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond
all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan,
would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system.
They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27
elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different
from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with
themselves. But besides these they used a large number of
purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed
constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in
addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. ...
With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been
preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the
Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no
positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is
especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also,
there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of
picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."
D. G. Brinton, The Myths of the New World, chapter 1.
----------AZTEC: End----------
{238}
B.
BABAR,
King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-;
King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-;
Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.
BABENBERGS, The.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
BABYLON: The City.
"The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a
hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the
entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such
is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that
approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a
broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall
fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. ... And
here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out
of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall
was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they
got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a
sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in
kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the
borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct
the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot
bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every
thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of
the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber
facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse
chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred
gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The
bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a
small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where
the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from
Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this
river. The city is divided into two portions by the river
which runs through the midst of it. This river is the
Euphrates. ... The city wall is brought down on both sides to
the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall,
there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt
bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the
streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to
the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the
water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low
gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the
great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the
water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There
is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the
first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre
of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In
the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of
great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct
of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way,
with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my
time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid
masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was
raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to
eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path
which winds round all the towers. . . . On the topmost tower
there is a spacious temple."
Herodotus, History, translated by G. Rawlinson,
book 1, chapters 178-181.
According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was
but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly
with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the
historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of
Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter
author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the
cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits
for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. ...
My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did
not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."
H. C. Rawlinson, note to above.-
See, also, BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.
BABYLON OF THE CRUSADERS, The.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
BABYLONIA, Primitive.
(So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has
been and is being brought to light by recent search and study,
and the account of it in English historical literature is so
meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for
deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part,
to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred,
therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before
its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume,
there will be later and better works to quote from on all the
subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory,
which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by
many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done
much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go
sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)
The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament
narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia
between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic
Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first
half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers.
It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated
Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the
Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to
cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus
had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which
afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped
writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had
attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their
cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly
on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft,
impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus.
{239}
The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects.
... In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and
Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them
still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the
latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated
classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in
modern Europe they are taught Latin."
A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2.
"Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of
the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long
continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the
language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named
Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played
by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is
highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western
Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and
sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only
of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans,
and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea
that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon
and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached
its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that
still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly
Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve
labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean
epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture
is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient
Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our
modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly
influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point
in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an
intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in
spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother
of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians
never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf,
while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been
born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian
literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the
dead language of primitive Chaldea."
A. H. Sayce, Babylonian Literature, pages 6-7.
A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.
"The place of China in the past and future is not that which
it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed
that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from
the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. ... It
was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted
series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of
communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere,
published and unpublished, and of contributions to several
works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some
knowledge of arts, science and government of the early
Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the
old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of
Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting
not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of
some length between the Susian confederation and the future
civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their
neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the
time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming
again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same
line."
Terrien de Lacouperie, Babylonia and China
(Academy, Aug. 7, 1880).
"We could enumerate a long series of affinities between
Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last
was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it
seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of
tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the
Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the
year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were
obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the
Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of
that region, where they must have been influenced by the
Akkado-Chaldean culture."
Terrien de Lacouperie, Early History of Chinese
Civilization, page 32.
See, also, CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.
BABYLONIA: The early (Chaldean) monarchy.
"Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea
shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each
headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the
sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a
patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i.
e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the
beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its
college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding
settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers.
That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than
probable. ... There comes a time when for the title of patesi
is substituted that of king. ... It is noticeable that the
distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous
Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names
of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic
idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old
language. ... Furthermore, even superficial observation shows
that the old language and the old names survive longest in
Shumir,--the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with
little chance of mistake that the North,--the land of Accad,--
was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established
their first headquarters in that part of the country, that
their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in
accordance with these indications, the first grand historical
figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim
with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet
unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of
Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be
called--more generally known in history under the corrupt
modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,'
to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the
same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of
Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in
Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a
wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two
cities came to be considered as one double city, and the
Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'--Sepharvaim, which
is often spoken of in the Bible. ... The tremendously ancient
date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of
Agade--perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in
history."
Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4.
{240}
"A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains
of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was
conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the
capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became
a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to
it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it
held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is
probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. ... A newly-found
inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C.
3750 [foot-note]. ... The first care of Khammuragas,
after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway
over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. ... Khammuragas
became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward
the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty
must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included
more than one line of kings. ... It was under the Cassite
dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,--
partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of
the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. ... In B. C.
1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son,
Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian
influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown
by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne.
This event may be considered the turning-point in the history
of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria
henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of
Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western
Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a
hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but
this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was
captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270,
and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."
A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.
ALSO IN:
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Chaldea, chapter 8.
See, also, ASSYRIA.
BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.
The later Empire.
For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270,
Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long
period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern
neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were
frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they
were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct
power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625
B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of
the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes
of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in
extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was
now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or
Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real
founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho
to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at
the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded
his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord
of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the
invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre
also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is
doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now
enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much
to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and
walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis
of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound,
was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three
walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were
constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median
prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and
overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated
to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a
height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other
temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and
in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were
established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six
months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562),
and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short
and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when
he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the
Neriglissar of the Greeks. ... The chief event of his reign of
four years and four months was the construction of a new
palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was
murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now
passed from the house of Nabopolassar,--Nabu-nahid or
Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another
family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and
witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"--which was
overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see
PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire
which he founded.
A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.
ALSO IN:
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 15.
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: The Fourth
Monarchy, chapter 8.
BABYLONIAN JEWS.
See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50, and A. D. 200-400.
BABYLONIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
BABYLONIAN TALMUD, The.
See TALMUD.
"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
BACCHIADÆ.
See CORINTH.
BACCHIC FESTIVALS.
See DIONYSIA.
BACENIS, Forest of.
See HERCYNIAN FOREST.
BACON'S REBELLION.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.
{241}
BACTRIA.
"Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty
Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored
district in the region of the Upper Oxus. ... On the banks of
the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend
broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh
mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and
beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes
of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and
the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians--the Bakhtri
of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. ... In ancient
times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but
their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds,
with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land
enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 6. chapter 2.
The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the
Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire
until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA,
&c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian
conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the
farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed
part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256
B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an
ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into
revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its
independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C.
281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted
on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years
before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood.
... The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement,
as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206
to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the
Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a
small kingdom to a considerable empire"--extending over the
greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into
the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw
off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so,
were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to
mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished
about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates
I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued
masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3-5.
BADAJOS: The Geographical Congress (1524).
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
BADEN: Early Suevic population.
See SUEVI.
BADEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806.
Aggrandized by Napoleon.
Created a Grand Duchy.
Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806, and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
BADEN: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French
Alliance.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BADEN: A. D. 1849.
Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
BADEN: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871.
Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
transformed into the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.
----------BADEN: End----------
BADEN, OR RASTADT, Treaty of (1714).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BADR, OR BEDR, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
BÆCULA, Battle of.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
BÆRSÆRK.
See BERSERKER.
BÆTICA.
The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards
took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.
See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25, and A. D. 428;
also TURDETANI, and VANDALS: A. D. 428.
BÆTIS, The.
The ancient name of the Guadalquiver river in Spain.
BAGACUM.
See NERVII.
BAGAUDS, Insurrection of the (A. D. 287).
The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched
during the distractions and misgovernment of the third
century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which
was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have
been much like those that occurred in France and England
eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called
Bagauds,--a name which some writers derive from the Celtic
word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage."
They sacked and ruined several cities,--taking Autun after a
siege of seven months,--and committed many terrible
atrocities. The Emperor Maximian--colleague of
Diocletian,--succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general
outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were
traces of it surviving long afterwards.
P. Godwin, History of France, volume 1: Ancient Gaul, book 2,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial
Administration, chapter 4.
See, also, DEDITITIUS.
BAGDAD, A. D. 763.
The founding of the new capital of the Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 763.
BAGDAD: A. D. 815-945.
Decline of the Caliphate.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1050.
In the hands of the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
The Fall of the Caliphate.
Destruction of the city by the Mongols.
In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis
Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a
great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to
send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to
exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained
their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of
Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of
the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or
Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness
and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the
Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world,
Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad,
preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to
raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to
the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the
Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous
and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous
preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken
after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols.
They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some
Christians, who are said to have been spared through the
influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The
sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we
are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with
all his family, was put to death.
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols,
volume 1, pages 193-201.
----------BAGDAD: End----------
[Image]
I.
Asia Minor
And The
Balkan Peninsula
Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.
Byzantine Empire.
Selj. Turks.
Servia.
Bulgaria.
Cilician Armenia.
Venetian Possessions.
States Under Latin Rule.
County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.
II
ASIA MINOR
AND THE
BALKAN PENINSULA
IN 1265
(SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE
EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)
III
ASIA MINOR.
IV
TURKISH EMPIRE.
----------End----------
{242}
BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. (Continued)
For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in
the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had
become once more "an independent temporal state, though,
instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the
caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their
position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times,
whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious
character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the
Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small
state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole
of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body,
but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition
of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their
last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of
Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it
survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to
become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan
of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended
Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was
proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under
the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his
successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the
Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument
both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes.
From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title
of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the
cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself
the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah
has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun,
rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to
enemies, neutrals, and allies."
E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens,
lecture 4.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1393.
Timour's pyramid of heads.
See TIMOUR.
BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638.
Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks.
Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.
See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
----------BAGDAD: End----------
BAGISTANA.
See BEHISTUN, ROCK OF.
BAGLIONI, The.
"The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they
carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th
centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that
of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate
of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles
fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing
the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the
catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy
was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger,
and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular
fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the
city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely
authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator
of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set
foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the
Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and
goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal
legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold
him. ... It was in vain that from time to time the people rose
against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public
square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the
dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son
Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they
flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in
the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the
treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian
republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. ... From
father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few
Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who
equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were
they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on
among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the
ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained
these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following
some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the
Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal
authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until
1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic,
possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo.
But from this year forward to their final extinction, every
detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest.
Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above
the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated
house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out
with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."
J. A. Symonds, Sketches in Italy and Greece,
pages 70-72.
BAGRATIDAE, The.
See ARMENIA: 12th-14th CENTURIES.
BAHAMA ISLANDS: A. D. 1492.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
BAHRITE SULTANS.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.
BAIÆ.
Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near
Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans.
"As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of
advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to
this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade
the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on
shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes,
in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails,
lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song
and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male
and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was
here the business of the day; ... they turned the pools of
Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these
pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and
conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their
surface."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.
BAINBRIDGE, Commodore William, in the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
{243}
BAIREUTH, Creation of the Principality of.
See GERMANY: THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
----------BAIREUTH: End----------
BAJAZET I.--Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1389-1402.
Bajazet II., A. D. 1481-1512.
BAKAIRI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
BAKER, Colonel Edward D., Killed at Ball's Bluff.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
BAKSAR, OR BAXAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BALACLAVA, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
BALANCE OF POWER.
In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which
aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the
greater nations.
T. J. Lawrence, International Law, page 126.
BALBINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 238.
BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
BALCHITAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, The Crusade of.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
Baldwin I., Latin Emperor at Constantinople
(Romania), A. D. 1204-1205.
Baldwin II., A. D. 1237-1261.
BALEARIC ISLANDS:
Origin of the Name.
"The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,'
to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and
the name is no doubt Phœnician."
J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4.
For the chief incidents in the history of these islands,
See MINORCA and MAJORCA.
BALIA OF FLORENCE, The.
The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their
power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento
and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time
to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning
faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated
in private by the chiefs of the great house. ... Segni says:
'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the
Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to
address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and
then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute
power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their
good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and
partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately
retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this
parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting
a change in the state."
J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
page 164, and foot-note.
See, also, FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and 1458-1469.
----------BALIA OF FLORENCE: End----------
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BALKAN: Ancient History.
The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the
most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a
common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it
seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They
occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA,
DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for
some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.
See, also, AVARS.
----------BALKAN: End----------
{244}
Danubian And Balkan States
Showing Changes During
The Present Century
The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN
LETTERS and this style of boundary:
All subsequent change, are shown by ITALIC
LETTERS and this style of boundary:
The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty
of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:
----------Danubian And Balkan States: End----------
BALKAN:
Races existing.
"In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited
by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in
distinct patches here and there over a large country. A
district like one of our larger counties in which one parish,
perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another
English, another Danish, another Old French, another the
tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or
Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and
which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western
land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into
South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of
which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real.
All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of
recorded history, together with several races which have come
in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but
as nations, each with its national language and national
feelings, and each having its greater or less share of
practical importance in the politics of the present moment.
Setting aside races which have simply passed through the
country without occupying it, we may say that all the races
which have ever settled in the country are there still as
distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular
region where it forms the whole people or the great majority
of the people, still there are large districts where different
races really live side by side in the very way which seems so
absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We
cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side
by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side
by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace.
The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques
and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position
from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form
three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and
Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came
in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West,
while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has
nothing answering to him in the West. ... When the Romans
conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three
great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those
three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for
themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern
Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every
reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of
the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and
Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as
thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. ... But the
position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high
civilization, hindered this.
{245}
The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely
political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they
gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own
language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say
that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the
Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the
Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became
the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that
spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately,
that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread,
the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by
no name but that of Romans. ... While the Greeks thus took the
Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people
in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language,
exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good
reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old
Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly
like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly
Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name.
They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as
the people of Gaul or Spain. ... In short, the existence of a
highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way
the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it
was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of
itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the
peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as
distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians,
still keep their own languages, while the third, the old
Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves
Roumans. ... The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place
answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the
West. ... But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in
many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with
regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of
the Teutons towards the Western Empire. ... They learned much
from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to
do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman,
in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western
Empire became Roman. ... Thus, while in the West everything
except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or
Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or
Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct
nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as
distinct nations still. ... There came among them, in the form
of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only
hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by
special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case.
Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might
simply have become a new nation alongside of the other
South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do
this. ... The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan
branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan
speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether
another class of nations and languages. ... Long before the
Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come;
and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both
the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian
nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as
the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a
Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated
with an existing European nation or may sit down as an
European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done
one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the
Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately
of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of
the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the
original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less
nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as
barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations
of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were
afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who
settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in
lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in
as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many
conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated
by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the
Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their
foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a
Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have
nothing Turanian about them except the name which they
borrowed from their Turanian masters. ... The Bulgarians
entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced
Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the
South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history.
But all their later history, from a comparatively short time
after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a
Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the
Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if
circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle
among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by
the Aryan nation among whom they settled."
E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: R. G. Latham, The Nationalities of Europe.
BALKAN: 7th Century.
(Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.)
The Slavonic settlement.
"No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been
oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its
inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of
Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav
tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube,
and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed,
'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris
barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with
the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew
upon the littoral. ... At the fall of the Empire came the
Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and
massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. ... In
630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia,
and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same
race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia,
Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation
which exists to-day dates from this epoch."
E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3.
{246}
"Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at
Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the
plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the
encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. ... To accomplish
this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western
Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian
mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of
the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient
seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between
the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of
these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the
continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate
plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian
subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the
western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the
invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who
settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants.
Their original settlements were formed in consequence of
friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of
an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and
Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain
degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. ...
These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire,
were composed of agricultural communities. ... Unlike the
military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded
them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the
lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every
relic of the ancient population, they formed political
communities and independent states, which offered a firm
barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. ... The states
which they constituted were of considerable weight in the
history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia,
Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some
centuries a political position very similar to that now held
by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.
See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION;
and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.
BALKAN: 7th-8th Centuries (Bulgaria).
Vassalage to the Khazars.
See KHAZARS.
BALKAN: 9th Century (Servia).
Rise of the Kingdom.
"At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth
century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the
Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the
supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country
they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the
Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern
Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time
of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the
Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject
themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the
Greeks. .... The Emperor ... permitted the Servians to be
ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who
preserved a patriarchal form of government. ... In the
eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they
had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their
immediate control, and to subject it to their financial
system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive.
"Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment
of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct
government, but it also firmly established the princely power
of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the
preservation of the national independence. ... Pope Gregory
VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."
L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1.
BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.)
Conversion to Christianity.
The Bogomiles.
Hungarian crusades.
Turkish conquest.
After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and
Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was
acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical
race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism
which still exists. The Croats were converted first by
missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and
Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently
part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to
Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from
Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern
Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav,
inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still
in use. ... In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of
Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of
Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization.
It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the
first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming
originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia,
annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long.
The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the
year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about
1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of
'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then
Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint
Stephen. ... About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia.
who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people
who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they
received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving
God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy.
... They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both
of its history and its present situation. ... The Hungarian
Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to
extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination
provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. ... In 1238 the first
great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in
obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was
devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a
number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the
Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In
1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of
Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. ... About the
year 1300 Paul of Brebir, 'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ
dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban
Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied
Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and
under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country
enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. ...
{247}
Before his death the Turks appeared on the
frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo
[see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000
Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the
conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a
Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then
followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of
civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for
them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453),
advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing
could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men
were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000
prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were
burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land
confiscated by the conquerors (1463). ... A period of struggle
lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see
TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. ... When the battle of Mohacz (August
29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D.
1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence
had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in
1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman
conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of
magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated
by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to
Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers
of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of
their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of
the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the
present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms
"against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern
principles, wrested from the Porte."
E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3.
ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.
BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria).
The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.
"The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope
both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they
reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful
nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return
to the north and all progress to the west. ... In the
beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or
Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple,
deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians
[subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still
rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a
treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of
gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty
inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives
who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were
deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was
left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence
of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and
horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the
Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and
circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs
bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the
duty of revenge."
E. Gibbon, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to
1007, book 2, chapter 2.
See, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043,
and ACHRIDA, THE KINGDOM OF.
BALKAN: A. D. 1096 (Bulgaria).
Hostilities with the First Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
BALKAN: 12th Century (Bulgaria).
The Second Bulgarian or Wallachian Kingdom.
"The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D.
1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his
incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most
important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian
and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between
Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this
extensive country now separated itself finally from the
government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies
ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European
monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom,
was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the
affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to
the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance
assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and
the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had
previously acted no prominent part in the political events of
the East, render it necessary to give some account of their
previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under
the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great
Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly,
particularly the southern and south-western part. White
Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the
Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.;
Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is
Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the
present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. ... The
question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the
lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us,
extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the
borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know
nothing."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1.
"Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh
origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the
country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome,
and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their
language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms
and mould of their own language, or whether they were the
descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA:
TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are
all questions which have been much controverted. It is
remarkable that while no people living on the south of the
Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth
century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban,
near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear
of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They
spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly,
during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia.
... Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are
now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia,
the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in
Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine
writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of
Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester.
... The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as
equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a
dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union
among the peoples bearing that name. They were all
occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants
of the Romans."
E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 3.
{248}
"The classical type of feature, so often met with among
Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman
extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to
Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the
Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be
seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at
random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and,
like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn
broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good
choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on
agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy
generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the
melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. ... Perhaps
no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and
immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the
Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding
races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their
own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own
dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of
their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any
divergence from their own established rules is sinful."
E. Gérard, Transylvanian Peoples
(Contemporary Review, March, 1887).
BALKAN: A. D. 1341-1356 (Servia).
The Empire of Stephan Dushan.
"In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at
Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the
Servians. Cantacuzenus ... went up the mountains and prevailed
upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom
he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause."
As the result of this connection, and by favor of the
opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the
Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his
dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of
Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard;
Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points
his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be
traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian
territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria,
which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in
the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to
assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern
and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by
either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect
the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself
Emperor of the Roumelians--the Macedonian Christ-loving
Czar--and began to wear the tiara. ... Stephan Dushan died
[Dec. 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he
had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power
by the bulwark of national institutions."
L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1-2.
ALSO IN: M'me E. L. Mijatovich, Kossovo, Int.
BALKAN: A. D. 1389 (Bulgaria).
Conquest by the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.
BALKAN: 14th Century (Bulgaria).
Subjection to Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia).
Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.
"The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its
limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D.
1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary,
conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and
held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th
century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian,
Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit
we have done with the barbarians. ... Until recently the
historians of Roumania have had little to guide them
concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which,
though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to
recorded and authenticated facts. .... It is admitted that the
plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by
communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and
influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long
remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty
voivodes or princes . ... and besides these there were
Khanates, ... some of which were petty principalities, whilst
others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of
them. ... Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not
only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself
Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he
formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by
the right of conquest. This alliance ... had for its objects
the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against
Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other;
for the ... Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the
year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the
Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in
stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two,
"finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of
Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance
with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis
(1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia
retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and
to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. ... According to
several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is
said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of
the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of
Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility
fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more
to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of
Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia
during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He
ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second
Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in
1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad.
{249}
It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other
important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the
neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to
shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a
century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at
first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero],
the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or
princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. ...
At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the
throne. ... This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or
'Good.' ... He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and
reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars
against Transylvania, Wallachia, ... the Turks, and Tartars.
... In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on
the river Birlad. ... In that year also Stephen ... completely
overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed
a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his
gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country
from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his
Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible
defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White
Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he
again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. ...
After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the
Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian
(Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified
Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of
the princes ... adding to their own influence, and rendering
the princes more and more subservient to their will. This
state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when
another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored
tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised
them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations."
Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance
with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode
of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare,
November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in
Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and
defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595,
Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which
Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were
effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the
victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded
Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a
battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg,
and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning
prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He
subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient
Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as
suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his
reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising
occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle
fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a
fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was
occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he
made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been
slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and
money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents
at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled
soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta,
and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in
August, 1601. ... The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the
17th century ... possesses little interest for English
readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power
[Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was
eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. ...
In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes,
Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir
in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual
manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes,
independently of each other, had entered into negotiations
with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at
Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their
suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the
protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the
country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found
himself in a position from which there appeared little chance
of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the
Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The
Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople,
and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen
Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of
Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the
honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was
deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and
decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native
princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by
the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or
farmers-general of the Porte."
J. Samuelson, Roumania, Past and Present,
part 2, chapter 11-13.
BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries:
(Montenegro) The new Servia.
"The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map
as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a
Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The
last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in
1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin
wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of
that fatal day. ... The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo
found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of
Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the
name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. ...
Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created
in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D.
1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the
country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him,
and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear
as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy
of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying
aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of
Ivo the Black retired to Venice.
{250}
From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro
was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851
by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th
and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. ...
Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely
independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the
plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the
mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his
consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter
of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre
took place on Christmas Eve 1703. ... The 17th and 18th
centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the
19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea.
The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers
the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed
Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of
the British fleet ... took Cattaro from the French, but
(pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was
compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power.
... Peter I. of Montenegro ... died in 1830, at the age of 80.
... His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. ... On the death of
Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince,
went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The
czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice;
and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk
and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. ...
Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). ... He was
succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."
J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life
and Thought, lecture 19).
"The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the
most despotic and the most popular in Europe--despotic,
because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and
popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the
wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so
firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and
no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army;
they are themselves a standing army."
J. G. C. Minchin, The Growth of Freedom in the Balkan
Peninsula, chapter 1.
A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).
L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.: Slave Provinces of
Turkey, chapter 2-6.
"Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in
which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small
people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of
proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one
place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves
in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by
the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure
from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down
to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that
but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of
limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed
by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks.
Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is
rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits
reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly
anything grown on it, only grass--and very good grass--in
spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has
scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter,
while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with
them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and
active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty
which becomes more serious the larger the invading force.
Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions
imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those
circumstances that this handful of people--because the
Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than
40,000 or 50,000--have maintained their independence. That
they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history
of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet
to come."
J. Bryce, Relations of History and Geography
(Contemporary Review, March, 1886).
BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.--(Servia):
The long oppression of the Turk.
Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch.
Independence achieved.
The Obrenovitch dynasty.
"The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune
to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last
feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate
successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of
strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but
did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were
insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws
to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and
incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the
army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted
212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The
crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of
the house of Neman. ... Of all the ancient rulers of the
country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the
present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of
Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.
See TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389, 1402-1451, and 1459;
also MONTENEGRO.
"The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion
or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of
whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of
Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. ... The
period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the
spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684,
began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years
afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that
kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the
civilization of Germany. ... Servia Proper, for a short time
wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene,
again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1739.
{251}
"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized
over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at
the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte.
Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time
the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the
spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these
brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the
approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential
Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with
indescribable horrors. ... Kara Georg [Black George], a
peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely
information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled
into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In
the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped
local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The
Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle
in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara
Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the
Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered
the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their
disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000
Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806,
cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish
authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating
the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more
severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In
December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The
succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla
warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an
auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks
from making the re-conquest of Servia. ... Kara Georg was now
a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost
unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of
eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous
events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of
affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless
legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of
Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a
separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however,
was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman
empire ... was now concentrated on the resubjugation of
Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara
Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the
Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814,
300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and
every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated
Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and
confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period,
Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis.
He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and
during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the
passes of the Balkans. ... He now saw that a favourable
conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of
chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in
making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute,
to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation
of the people. ... He now displayed singular activity in the
extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found
reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to
destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and
raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed
was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and
Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as
tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the
speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out,
and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed
in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but
secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor,
whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him
to death."
A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
book 1, chapter 3.
"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by
the National Assembly. ... In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was
at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch
proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' ... If asked why
the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the
descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in
Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty.
The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant
proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from
Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the
extension of its territory, and the making of its
railways,--all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch
rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great
opportunity of making his people free as well as independent.
But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of
freedom. ... In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this
step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia
and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual
government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's
rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. ... It was
anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was
succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by
Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in
which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started
upon his travels. ... When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander
Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to
1858 the son of Black George lived--he can scarcely be said to
have reigned--in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble
son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country.
... Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his
stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere
presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He
died peacefully in his bed. ... Michael succeeded his father.
... Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at
Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan,
the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was
barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was
appointed."
J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life
and Thought, lecture 19).
ALSO IN: E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 6.
BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia).
A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania).
Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of
Austrian Wallachia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
{252}
BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia).
Awakening of a National Spirit.
The effect of historical teaching.
"No political fact is of more importance and interest in
modern continental history than the tenacity with which the
smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality
in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of
large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful
armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with
Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as
separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to
join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of
Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of
the population of the empires of which they form but small
sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and
Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to
distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all
these questions. ... This rekindling of the national spirit is
the result chiefly of the development of the new historical
school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in
ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass
of legends as containing the true tale of their countries'
achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the
works of their great historians what the story of their
fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of
their ancestors. These great historians--Herculano, Palacky,
Széchenyi, and the rest--who made it their aim to tell the
truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary
style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest
aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter
Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all
learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from
Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From
these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be
made interesting at the expense of truth. ... The vitality of
the new historical school in Roumania is particularly
remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that
kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp
out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary
rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself
in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern
European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its
historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously
proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted
instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers
only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots
Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in
educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left
in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first
endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary
level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to
teach the Roumanian people something of their own early
history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most
remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian
province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first
thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by
teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of
his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable
labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and,
according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner,
after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with
such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the
creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be
said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by
the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the
Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked
on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not
published until 1853, more than forty years after its
completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still
proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major,
was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of
the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern
society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed
at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian
history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of
Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter
Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In
1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the
Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was
necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because
of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in
which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their
own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted
lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit
of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in
1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the
Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The
Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian
history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of
Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was
founded, an historical section was formed with the special
mission of studying and publishing documents connected with
Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread
widely throughout the kingdom."
H. Morse Stephens, Modern Historians and Small
Nationalities (Contemporary Review, July, 1887).
BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople.
Life Election of the Hospodars.
Substantial independence of the Turk.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866.
(Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia).
Union of the two provinces under one Crown.
Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
{253}
BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878.
The Breaking of the Turkish yoke.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Russo-Turkish War.
In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made
to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened
resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no
longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw
which broke the back of Turkish solvency. ... The hopes of the
insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe,
which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the
Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it
necessary to be conciliatory, and ... they induced him to
issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of
taxes, and economical and social reforms. ... Europe, however,
had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for
some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads
together, and the result of their consultations was the
Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th,
1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had
signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the
spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt
whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count
Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the
necessary measures should be placed under the care of a
special commission, half the members of which should be
Mussulmans and half Christians. ... It concluded with a
serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow,
'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had
great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be
unable to resist the current.' ... It was evident, however,
that this note would have but little or no effect; it
contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte
quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself
with profuse promises. ... So affairs drifted on; the little
war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by
Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in
keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by
Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was
unable to accept. ... The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by
the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties
between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published
a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal
conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck,
Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May.
... Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and
Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of
the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. ... While
the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic
thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had
occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices
and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The
Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a
rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was
beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of
the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most
horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish
irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to
Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. ... On June
16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office,
saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be
unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with
cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' ... A week
afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News
... gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from
18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at
about a hundred. ... That there was much truth in the
statements of the newspaper correspondents was ...
demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry
Elliot's despatches were made public. ... 'I am satisfied,'
wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have
been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians
upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although
the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.'
... Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a
special commissioner to make an investigation independent of
official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had
been one of that journal's correspondents during the
Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in
company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the
Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of
Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for
the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at
Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of
July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the
British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in
collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters
was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country
revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the
populace. ... Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in
men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the
appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the
town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among
the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing.
There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair
hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these
remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally
covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in
clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The
stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was
more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was
festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms,
and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little
hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and
girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was
still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite
uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. ... The town
had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had
escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their
ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a
mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A
woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair
clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did
this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of
the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust
arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible
news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the
subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty
of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in
which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover,
the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000
Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly
or partially burnt. ... Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might
be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had
been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was
ignorant of the Turkish language--which is that chiefly spoken
in Bulgaria--and was therefore at the mercy of his
interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected
Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and
that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the
contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little
or no resistance.
{254}
In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand.
... No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No
Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured.
No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was
desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand,
had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000
Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak
was told in language of precisely similar import to that of
Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never
seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of
the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000
are known to survive'. ... Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes
of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed
utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell
into a state of complete anarchy. ... As Lord Derby remarked,
it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and
bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were
strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who
declared war on Turkey on July 1st. ... Up to the last Prince
Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but
the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some
small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish
spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was
followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his
brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if
appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the
struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness
in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of
considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut
them off from their base of operations. This success was,
however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish
Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of
numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border.
Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more
fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not
sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians
fell back from all their positions of defence, and on
September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the
walls of Alexinatz. ... On September 16th the Porte agreed to
a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be
acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace
exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General
Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of
Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the
Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the
evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's
proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were
nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity
prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to
prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd.
This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who
were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some
contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for
their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was
forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting;
position after position yielded to them; on October 31st
Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November
1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and
Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must
perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the
intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at
Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting
all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877,
Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the
Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in
South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.
Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
volume 10, chapter 22-23.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.
BALKAN: A. D. 1878.
Treaty of Berlin.
Transfer of Bosnia to Austria.
Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania.
Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.
"(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria
for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of
nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were
Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans,
mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the
Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the
occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her
forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to
keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2)
Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had
promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and
Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off
the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the
Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all
the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered
by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent
Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the
upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her
independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but
had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired
from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth
of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the
large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so
acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria,
which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an
independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin
Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into
two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides
the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of
Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans
and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north
of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with
Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain
Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte
with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy
the passes of the Balkans in time of war."
J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter 42.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ALSO IN: E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 4, nos. 518, 524-532.
{255}
BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1891.
Proposed Balkan Confederation and its aims.
"During the reaction against Russia which followed the great
war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a
view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the
purpose of resisting Russian aggression. ... Prince Alexander
always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was
to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part
of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of
influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia,
followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of
Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling
among the rival races that for many years nothing more was
heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been
revived under different auspices and with somewhat different
aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with
England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck,
protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in
particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also
acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout
the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any
dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most
remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the
extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of
Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as
a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to
see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in
their national independence and consolidation; they have
recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help
themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while
carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might
again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus.
They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing
without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres
shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days
in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's
years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now
engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his
accession; the internal development of the country proceeds
apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the
country--in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a
whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides
in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always
ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What
happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the
Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never
expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia,
England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France
got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The
Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the
division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon
the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many
Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have
hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe
that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not
forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous
wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot
forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or
reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported
article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial
tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at
Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless
ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be
comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no
reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from
the European Conference which will follow it, or from the
sympathy of the Christian Powers. ... What, then, do the
authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate
aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of
the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick
Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it
when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for
the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central
Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is
believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will
plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the
Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will
be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a
portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web
of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a
matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate
successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by
the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to
them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse,
they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the
moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other
words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they
could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what
is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and
without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to
bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her
European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with
the position of an Asiatic Power."
J. D. Bourchier, A Balkan Confederation (Fortnightly
Review, Sept., 1891).
BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria):
Reunion of the two Bulgarias.
Hostility of Russia.
Victorious war with Servia.
Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.
"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces,
contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter
disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had
prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending
agitation was inevitably bound to spring--a crop which the
Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On
either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia,
the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as
to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end
should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the
course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the
other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was
a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting
with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who
prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of
September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported
by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that
it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least
resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one
drop of blood!
{256}
Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in
preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty
to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in
a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from
Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed
the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte
protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and
called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to
enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of
October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn
this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan
will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign
rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his
disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the
use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to
employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an
accomplished fact. ... Whilst England and Austria both
accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered
necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte
(although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia
displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord
with the feelings of the Russian nation. ... In Russia they
had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder
and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing
accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country
was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were
becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian
subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of
the people of Russia--henceforth they would refuse to accept
the Russian yoke! ... If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her
high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and
hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every
means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any
sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has
happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in
the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the
Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power,
attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885,
Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three
days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The
Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of
length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight
days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the
Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its
own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by
assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his
victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister,
under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that
country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded,
afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at
Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia,
by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for
the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a
reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to
attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the
victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the
Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming
to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated
Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet
and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte
was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his
being attacked, ... From that date the Czar swore that he
would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that
Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the
sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it
against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to
the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the
anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this--that
he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and
rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the
Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord
Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of
malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and
some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together,
broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August,
seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to
Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where
he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators
endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose
against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M.
Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of
September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince
Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the
acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a
respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he
offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that
potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with
Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to
advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander
decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the
Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."
E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, Introduction.
ALSO IN:
A. Von Huhn, The Struggle of the Bulgarians.
J. G. C. Minchin, Growth of Freedom in the Balkan
Peninsula.
A. Koch, Prince Alexander of Battenberg.
BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia).
Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia.
Abdication of the King.
"In October, 1875. ... Milan, then but twenty-one years old,
married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen
was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess
Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been
born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet
burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her
great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her
ambition and her wealth. ... At first all went well, to
outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of
his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians,
on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection
was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she
presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the
domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and
seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions
elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent.
{257}
Further, Servia was then passing through a
difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing.
Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought
home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects
distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in
1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom--a fact
which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they
merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision
that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased,
King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained
solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues.
Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her
husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming
a political role, for which she believed herself to have great
aptitude. ... As she could not influence the decisions of the
Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it
her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread
throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were
formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. ... Meantime
Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he
had almost mortgaged his territory. ... While the husband and
wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave
events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état
of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the
principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth
had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused
himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared
against Bulgaria. ... There followed the crushing defeat of
Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off
such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and
precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero
Nathalie had dreamed, Milan ... telegraphed to the Queen,
busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate
forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any
feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth
she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. ... In
1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen
taking with her the Crown Prince. ... Florence was the goal of
the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. ...
The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade.
Milan would not hear of it. ... The Queen went to Wiesbaden in
consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be
suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. ... And
to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent
their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. ...
Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in
Europe, Milan ... petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce,
on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by
canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen
refused her consent. ... Nor could the divorce have been
obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian
Metropolitan Theodore. ... Quick vengeance, however, was in
store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown
more and more disturbed. ... The King, perplexed, afraid,
storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and
deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide,
suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his
son. ... Without regret his people saw depart from among them
a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit,
and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a
difficult political crisis. ... After kneeling down before his
son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889),
Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe ... leaving
the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. ...
'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy
King on hearing of his elevation. ... Three Regents are
appointed to aid the King during his minority."
"Politikos," The Sovereigns, pages 353-363.
----------BALKAN: End----------
BALKH.
Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).
From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan
moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of
the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested
the great city of Balkh,--which is thought in the east to be
the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly
have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race.
"Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may
possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200
large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths
for the use of foreign merchants and travellers--though it has
been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200
mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm
and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but
Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so
long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry
the place by force of arms--an achievement of no great
difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of
Islam'--as the pious town was called--was razed to the ground.
In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The
noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand--its
spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"
J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 4.
ALSO IN: H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols,
volume 1, chapter 3.
BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.
See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
BALNEÆ.
SEE THERMÆ.
BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.
"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings
of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from
the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the
Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented
themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin
historians translated into Judex (Judge)."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders,
introduction, chapter 3.
See BAUX, LORDS OF.
BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730.
Founding of the city.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812.
Rioting of the War Party.
The mob and the Federalists.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
{258}
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814.
British attempt against the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860.
The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April).
The city controlled by the Secessionists.
The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May).
Disloyalty put down.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
----------BALTIMORE: End----------
BALUCHISTAN.
See Supplement in volume 5.
BAN.--BANAT.
"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory
[Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin,
and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. ... The Banat is
the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian
Empire."
A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,
volume 2, page 28.
Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers
of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban,
who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were
seven of them, each known by the name of the province he
governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this
day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if
that title be preferred) is called the ban."
L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, page 55.
BAN, The Imperial.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BANBURY, Battle of.
Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought July
26,1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian
insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the
forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed
and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.
Mrs. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
volume 2, chapter 5.
BANDA ORIENTAL, The.
Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by
the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La
Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
BANK OF ST. GEORGE.
See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
BANKS, General Nathaniel P.
Command in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY:
ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Red River Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.
The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after
1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded
in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France
by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the
Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.
J. J. Lalor, editor. Cyclopædia of Political Science.
ALSO IN: J. W. Gilbart, History and Principles of
Banking, section 1 and 3.
BANKS, Wildcat.
See WILDCAT BANKS.
BANNACKS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
BANNERETS, Knights.
See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.
BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.
BANT, The.
See GAU.
BANTU TRIBES, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BAPTISTS.
See article in the Supplement, volume 5.
BAR, A. D. 1659-1735.
The Duchy ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.
BAR: The Confederation of.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
BARATHRUM, The.
"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep
hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron
hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in
pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the
Lacedæmonians."
G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,
book 7, section 133, note.
BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660.
Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.
See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.
BARBADOES: A. D. 1656.
Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.
BARBARIANS.
See ARYANS.
BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
----------BARBAROSSAS: End----------
BARBARY STATES.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709.
Mahometan conquest of North Africa.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171.
The Fatimite Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415.
Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.
See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.
{259}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
Spanish conquests on the coast.
Oran.
Bugia.
Algiers.
Tripoli.
In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal
Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and
formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly
opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led
personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with
a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest
of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former,
was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in
the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the
Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the
Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous
borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no
respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves
to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain
religious wars above every other. ... No less than 4,000 Moors
were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to
8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was
inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes
left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro
Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January
13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he
routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his
flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin,
and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after
another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as
vassals of the Catholic king. ... They guaranteed, moreover,
the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions;
for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify
themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish
residents. ...On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of
Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence,
surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name
had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of
Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met
with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where
4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in
the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the
progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The
results obtained, however, were of great importance. ... Most
of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later
times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's
successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in
so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for
their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently
incorporated with the Spanish empire."
W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella, chapter 21 (volume 3).
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers.
Establishment of Turkish sovereignty.
Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.
"About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution
happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable
to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more
attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born
in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such
illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in
the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising
spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a
crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their
valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small
brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct
and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides
many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder
brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard,
was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost
equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the
sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names
soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to
those of Gibraltar. ... They often carried the prizes which
they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of
Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their
booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were
welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The
convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the
greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made
the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An
opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself
[1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited
by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish
fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was
able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine
kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne
which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of
Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his
dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued
to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which
resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the
light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel
devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth--the great Emperor and
King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign,
to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with
troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in
the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His
brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa,
assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and
abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being
undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full
occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated
with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom,
carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and
extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But
perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his
government with reluctance, and being afraid that his
continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of
the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of
the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the
title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers
sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At
last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman
offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. ... Barbarossa
repaired to Constantinople, and ... gained the entire
confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he
communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself
master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on
the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he
obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution.
His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the
intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of
that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had
established one of the younger sons on the throne as his
successor. This young king attempted to put all of his
brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest,
escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the
Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating
the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried
out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed.
{260}
Alraschid himself disappeared--a prisoner, shut up in the
Seraglio--and was never heard of again. The use of his name,
however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the
betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a
viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now
possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his
depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent
and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints
of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the
emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All
Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and
most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new
and odious species of oppression. At the same time
Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, ... applied to Charles
as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition
to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in
1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men
and ships from every part of his wide dominions--from Spain,
Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the
fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above
30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a
prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort
of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the
corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly
from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten,
and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed
into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making
it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the
innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000
were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a
throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on
whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the
country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under
which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee
of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his
liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He
also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his
dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in
servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his
kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and
pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.
W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 5 (volume 2).
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.
The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.
Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the
emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the
reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the
freebooters of the north African coast. Before his
preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far
advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria
conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction
almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the
autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined
obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. ... The force ...
which he had collected ... consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000
horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. ...
Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers
sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most
valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition,
Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the
invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly
natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When
summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and
haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his
desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long
resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated
Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily
relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which
burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's
debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers
drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition
they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped
a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated
by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with
unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on
which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors,
dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the
rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15
ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished
before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped
the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as
they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria
sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the
emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point.
Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the
suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat,
which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the
whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the
flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's
orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a
few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained
the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second
storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his
Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.
M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, chapter 8.
ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 6 (volume 2.)
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
The pirate Dragut and his exploits.
Turkish capture of Tripoli.
Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.
Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite
the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean
corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted
the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In
1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound
to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,--which did not
sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was
ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than
before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called
Gelves, by the Spaniards]. ... Not content with the rich
spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa,
one by one--Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to
conquer 'Africa.'
{261}
It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital
by the same name. ... 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province
of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first
Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the
later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian
writers to the latter city. ... This was the city which Dragut
took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in
an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to
betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to
any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who
had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's
protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into
the city by night. ... So easy a triumph roused the emulation
of Christendom. ... Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining
the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the
Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria
took the command. After much delay and consultation a large
body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June
28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea,
devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance
for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his
nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned,
the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in
attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was
carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551,
Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by
Sinan Pasha. ... With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000
soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out
of the Dardanelles--whither bound no Christian could tell.
They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then
revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But
the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of
the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed;
it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed
straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the
natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the
Knights of St. John--much against their will--inasmuch as the
Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary
state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the
fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the
Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant,
was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he
believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the
Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was
in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the
garrison--all save a few--in chains and carried them off to
grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more
into the hands of the Moslems. ... The misfortunes of the
Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet
appeared in Italian waters. ... Unable as they felt themselves
to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe
resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli.
A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain,
Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the
Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. ...
Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven
back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was
fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited
it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their
disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were
working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000
corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay
siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in
sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to
Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the
beautiful island. ... In two months a strong castle was built,
with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to
carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence.
Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. ... He was about
to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet
had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant
gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. ...
Before they could make out of the strait ... the dread Corsair
[Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them.
Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description.
Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the
panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted
them, never stopping even to set them on fire. ... On rowed
the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into
their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their
scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was
a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks
busy in looting men and galleys--and a hideous heap of mangled
bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina
... were absolutely lost."
S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs.
ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapter 1.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.
In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt
was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards
from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the
African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce
and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered
garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from
Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors
retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the
Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez,
breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their
footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year
following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which
was a place of refuge for the marauders.
W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565.
Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta.
Death of Dragut.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1,130-1565.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571.
War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
The Battle of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria.
Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
{262}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579.
Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal.
His defeat and death.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
Wars of France against the piratical powers.
Destructive bombardments of Algiers.
"The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman
Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had
become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of
Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both
of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian
empire. ... Divers plans were proposed in the King's council
for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for
repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the
merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the
king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the
best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by
the Duke de Beaufort ... landed 5,000 picked soldiers before
Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah
and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty
(July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his
officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify
themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged
to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of
Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the
celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of
this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the
course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French
captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with
proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission
failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to
his oath and returned--to suffer death, as he expected, at the
hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton
Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger
in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the
guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the
Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated
themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to
respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen
whom they should capture on foreign ships. .... Rights of
aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as
regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape
Negro was restored to France. ... Algiers submitted, six'
months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by
Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French
merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign
nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000
French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672,
Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest
with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally,
to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other
project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained
on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of
Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the
coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels,
pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took
refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of
Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French
squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the
town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a
truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23,
1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the
news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan,
Mahomet IV., fell into a rage ... and dispatched the
Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the
Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with
the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if
satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan
hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it
was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end
there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French
vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to
receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another
squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts
of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations
the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley
Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace
of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January
29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution
of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with
Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest
offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery
there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a
terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of
conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the
king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this
conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first
attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to
embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have
required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another
means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval
construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for
the purpose. ... July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before
Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and
Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by
bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the
thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The
effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the
crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of
September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the
bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were
repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to
negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind
shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm;
Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not
been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne
reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven
bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of
extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights
of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of
houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand
men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened
negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by
his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead.
{263}
"The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. ... The
Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of
their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands.
... The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled
calamities. ... The bombs rained almost without intermission.
The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was
... a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had
exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching.
Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was
kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the
return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed
their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by
Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey,
Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320
French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other
Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had
been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no
prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to
assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to
recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other
flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their
submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the
damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."
H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 4 and 7.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.
Piratical depredations upon American commerce.
Humiliating treaties and tribute.
The example of resistance given by the United States.
"It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the
Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every
nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless
they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute
paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a
book of travels during the last century without mention being
made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who
ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. ... The European
states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice
either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which
in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire
freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums
yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers,
was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000
annually, besides large presents distributed according to
custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace
of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five
millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the
same time England was paying an annual tribute of about
$280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on
the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her
own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave
them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of
other European powers, and even to support them by paying a
sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make
peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the
United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our
commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was
therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty
with France we desired to have an article inserted into the
treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants
of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against
all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It
was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of
1778, and instead of that the king agreed to 'employ his good
offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and
efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and
safety of the United States against the princes and the states
of Barbary or their subjects.'"
Direct negotiations between the United States and the
piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr.
Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter
announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers,
and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that
no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace
with them.' ... The ambassador demanded as the lowest price
for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and
£3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the
same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.
Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and
Congress had appropriated only $80,000. ... Mr. Adams was
strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and
preferred the payment of tribute. ... Mr. Jefferson quite as
decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of
pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor
of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time
to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number
of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the
sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were
allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. ... In
November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers
amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the
original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to
realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January
2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval
force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the
United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be
provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six
frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as
galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in
September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In
making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the
usage of European powers--not only pay a large sum for the
purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to
keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total
cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."
E. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, part 4.
"The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated
during Washington's administration, cost the United States,
for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's
forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an
annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States
followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the
payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered
thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and
President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had
to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and
Denmark.
{264}
But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain
Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual
tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey
ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine
dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have
done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and
the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because
you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. ... The lesser
Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of
Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless
President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon
Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the
new President [Jefferson]. ... Jefferson had, while in
Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method
hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and,
availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent
out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a
sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of
Barbary. ... Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July,
1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American
vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated
war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while
Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels
in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President,
proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner
Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of
14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a
time overawed, and the United States thus set the first
example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of
ransom the rule of security against these commercial
marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded
at home by men of all parties."
J. Schouler, History of the U. S.,
chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 16.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.
American War with the pirates of Tripoli.
"The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no
nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before.
Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the
Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May,
1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from
Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired
his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until
at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and
dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore
Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the
relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily
strong. ... He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain
Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August
24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the
neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American
brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been
seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the
outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he
had come to relieve, and with this combined force, ... sending
the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers
October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On
both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old
treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at
length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the
Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the
Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had
been captured October 21, more than three weeks before.
Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan
cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the
frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every
effort was made without success to float her; but at last she
was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck
his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the
frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The
officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300
or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way
discreditable to the squadron. ... The Tripolitans gained
nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion
Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young
lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured
Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75
men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by
night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle
guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the
harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded
the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove
the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained
alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then
withdrew without losing a man."
H. Adams, History of the United States: Administration of
Jefferson, volume 2, chapter 7.
"Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations
for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli
with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three
brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels.
Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on
shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two
schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys.
Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made,
and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was
inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered
possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not
because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from
exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government
sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron
which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States
he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress
were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and
faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and
in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna,
by a combined land and naval force; the former being under
command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the
American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The
enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the
shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and
finally their principal work was carried by the force under
O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press
forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores,
and much of his advantage was lost.
{265}
All further operations were, however, discontinued in June,
1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and
prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which
provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that
American vessels should be forever free of his rovers.
Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact
remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all
the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan
Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome
sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This
treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from
the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began
to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and
ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."
S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs, chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Cooper, History of the U. S. Navy,
volume 1, chapter 18 and volume 2, chapter 1-7.
J. F. Cooper, Life of Preble.
A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 3-7.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.
Final War of Algiers with the United States.
Death-blow to Algerine piracy.
"Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of
Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America
the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had
unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war,
and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her
crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the
treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated.
Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old,
including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed
squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur
sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and
Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the
Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two
days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an
Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine
navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of
twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was
chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by
the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the
terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he
submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all
prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities,
renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or
presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war
to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and
obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels
captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers
during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash,
Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of
liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., Second Series, chapter 30
(volume 3).
ALSO IN:
A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 13-14.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and
Tunis.
"The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the
captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still
languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of
the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist
in its very centre. ... The conclusion of the war [of the
Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of
these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of
civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down;
Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved
upon her to do the work. ... Happily for this country the
Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth]
whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before
him. ... Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to
the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize
the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude
peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish
Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the
two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis
followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition
consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war
as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and
endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The
Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte,"
and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with
the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked
attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected
by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying
the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste,
with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No
answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been
joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle
range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships
to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire
till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of
spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved
his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire.
They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely
warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the
mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire
broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first
discharge. ... The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock
in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening.
By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the
Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the
enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their
principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of
their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the
terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of
September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his
government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city
of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the
commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian
Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also
extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he
would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the
usages of European nations. In the battle which won these
important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on
board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52
wounded."
S. Walpole, History of England from 1815,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years Peace,
book 1, chapter 6 (volume l).
L. Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
volume 1.
{266}
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
French conquest of Algiers.
"During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain
for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants
of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which
was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been
paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own
figures, while the French government, believing the demand
excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous
debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey,
became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered
him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the
insult, even on the formal demand of the French government,
and consequently there was no alternative but war." The
expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the
chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men,
3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. ... The sea-forces
included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller
vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops.
General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition,
which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830."
Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of
Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of
Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the
affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and
without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles
west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong,
commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its
position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the
French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the
19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist,
instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the
French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet
them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined
battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss
in killed and wounded was about 3,000, ... while the French
loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle
was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly
retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine
camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of
June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then
advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in
position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened,
on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey
hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to
the last moment to retain his country and its independence by
making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the
expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian
slaves in addition to paying them for their services and
sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis,
but his offers of mediation were politely declined. ... It was
finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all
its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire
wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal
belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any
circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers
in great pomp and took possession of the city. ... The spoils
of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering
army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign
are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled
with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately,
the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins
of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of
the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very
clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or
three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast
pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000
francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French
treasury. ... The cost of the war was much more than covered
by the captured property. ... Many slaves were liberated. ...
The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day
Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha
embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of
whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained
for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt."
In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.
T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles Since Waterloo, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 19.
E. E. Crowe, History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and
Charles X., volume 2, chapter 13.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.
"When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D.
1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country
[of Algiers]--though they did not effectually subdue it;
their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers--from
Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46'
West, to Oran, on the west--nearly the entire extent of the
ancient Libya. ... There was always a party in the chamber of
deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the
colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants
of either men or money to be devoted to the African
enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men
could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and,
whilst the young colony languished, the natives became
emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost
the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the
government of the colony, and the supreme command of the
troops ... established a series of fortified posts, which were
adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the
garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These
positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in
consequence of the home government recalling the greater part
of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some
corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first
regiment of zouaves was raised." ... In 1833 we "first hear of
Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest,
in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with
great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the
standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with
the fullest confidence of success.
{267}
His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and,
encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the
close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former
name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the
west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of
Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara,
lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At
that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a
very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against
Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook
Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834,
entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties
were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that
year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief
again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered
the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being
received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th
of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against
him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a
sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael.
After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with
considerable loss. ... The French general, finding his
position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the
28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and
before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his
waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and
252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded.
The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by
the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the
cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for
marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the
government at home complied; at the same time issuing a
proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned,
but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained.
The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he
landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was
Abd-el-Kader's capital. ... The Arab chieftain advanced to
meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to
abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of
December, and found completely deserted. The streets and
houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living
creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some
mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either
forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted
houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they
marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the
centre of French power in that district."
Thomas Wright, History of France, volume 3, pages 633-635.
"A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an
action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states
that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the
enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required
of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the
assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge.
On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat
on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal
Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed
against Constantina. ...After the failure of Clauzel, General
Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the
30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud
and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to
direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being
formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000
men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for
Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on
the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including
Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The
fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old
Turkish government. ... By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes
had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by
General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This
road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22
leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site
of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers:
and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to
supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the
province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe
him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A
misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of
the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. ...
When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the
command of a numerous army, the French, with republican
charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna
treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising
empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been
recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to
the river Mijerda. ... The war was resumed, and many French
razzias took place. They once marched a large force from
Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed
in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself.
He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which
thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000)
offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with
the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came
over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his
bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own
hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had
been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave,
could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all
the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were
fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown
by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where
Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole
population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that,
having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against
the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had
then only two chances,--the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman,
Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might
conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had
replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by
movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina;
and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the
results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective.
{268}
General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the
Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière
in Oran,--carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions
with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of
1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier,
surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part
of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself
escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco,
excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire,
and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much
against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war
very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly,
with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier
and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle
was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of
Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its
particulars, save in one instance. ... On the night of the
12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud
left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head
of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of
the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children,
about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped
the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as
they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had
some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had
lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up
quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to
surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the
summons. ... As there was no other outlet from the cave than
that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must
have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the
imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were
desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense
fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously
during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that
would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the
wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the
cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer
to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been
heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less
smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up
throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the
then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a
sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent
cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how
matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and
they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified,
hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No
wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the
Arabs dead--men, women, children. ... St. Arnaud and Pelissier
were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult
observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in
Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' ... A
taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French
guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. ... Morocco
sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one
of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of
coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the
Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him,
nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew
off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the
emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to
negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours'
discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last
exploits against the French, where he was received with
military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at
Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of
Abd-el-Kader in Ham."
J. R. Morell, Algeria, chapter 22.
BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1881.
Tunis brought under the protectorate of France.
See FRANCE: A. D.1875-1889.
----------BARBARY STATES: End----------
BARBES.--BARBETS.
The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which
signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied
to the Waldensian people generally.
E. Comba, History of the Waldenses of Italy, page 147.
BARCA.
See CYRENE.
BARCELONA: A. D. 713.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1151.
The County joined to Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
BARCELONA: 12th-16th Centuries.
Commercial prosperity and municipal freedom.
"The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the
county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a
very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the
union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the
latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal
legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a
degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the
Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative
commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with
foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in
the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other
rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over
the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls,
and her commercial factories, were established in every
considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of
Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various
domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of
export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable
quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and
returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of
commodities the reverse of that existing between the two
nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of
having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in
Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of
foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the
glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code,
among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from
the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis
of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle
Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result
of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous
public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange,
hospitals, and other constructions of general utility.
Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries,
expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious
private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public
squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the
amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs.
{269}
But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her
municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate
or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or
counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four
to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative,
the latter with the executive functions of administration. A
large proportion of these bodies were selected from the
merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were
invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of
the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial
treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the
city in time of war; provided for the security of trade;
granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might
violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for
the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such
commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for
individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the
municipality, were complimented with certain honorary
privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were
addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their
heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by
mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the
country; and deputies from their body to the court were
admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign
ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were
plebeians,--merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed
a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."
W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella, introduction, section 2.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1640.
Insurrection.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1651-1652.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1705.
Capture by the Earl of Peterborough.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1706.
Unsuccessful siege by the French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714.
Betrayal and desertion by the Allies.
Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
BARCELONA: A. D. 1842.
Rebellion and bombardment.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
----------BARCELONA: End----------
BARCELONA, Treaty of.
See ITALY: A.D. 1527-1529.
BARCIDES, OR BARCINE FAMILY, The.
The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father
of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas,
given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and
signified lightning.
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthagenians, chapter 7.
BARDS.
See FILI.
BARDULIA, Ancient Cantabria.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
BARÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
BAREBONES PARLIAMENT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
BARKIAROK, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1092-1104.
BARMECIDES, OR BARMEKIDES, The.
The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the
Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the
stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to
great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It
took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose
father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most
celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted
Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the
conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the
Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs
recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya
succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous
Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya,
who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the
family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much
greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however,
among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and
master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart
against him, and against all his house. The fall of the
Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been
unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning;
his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members
of the family are said to have been slain.
R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: E. H. Palmer, Haroun Alraschid, chapter 3.
BARNABITES.--PAULINES.
"The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation
was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two
Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533,
and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545
took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas,
which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have
been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines,
actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy
and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."
A. W. Ward, The Counter Reformation, page 29.
BARNBURNERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
BARNET, Battle of (A. D. 1471).
The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars
of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England
and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the
former returned before six months had passed and made his way
to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of
Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter
Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from
London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose
of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick
was among the slain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
BARNEVELDT, John of, The religious persecution and death of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
{270}
BARON.
"The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the
[Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to
'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo'
itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the
ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and
the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn
of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11,
section 124.
BARON, Court.
See MANORS.
BARONET.
"One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet.
... Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the
diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the
liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore,
etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor
admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are
grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of
the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the
larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the
prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not
degrade, even in their etymological signification, which
baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove
this radical defect. ... Independently of these
considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy
monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale.
Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a
consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of
Ulster."
R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciæ, pages 368-369.
BARONS' WAR, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
BARONY OF LAND.
"Fifteen acres, but in some places twenty acres."
N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.
BARRIER FORTRESSES, The razing of the.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
BARRIER TREATIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709,
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
BARROW.
A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial,
... as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all
parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the
coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and
civilisations. ... They abound in Great Britain and Ireland,
differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and
are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of
stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes,
and tumps."
W. Greenwell, British Barrows, pages 1-2.
ALSO IN: Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric TIMES, chapter 5.
BARTENSTEIN, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
BARWALDE, Treaty of.
See GERMANY. A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).
BASHAN.
See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.
For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian
provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876),
"besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians,
great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had
been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the
insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are
called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to
their being sent out without regular organization and without
officers at their head."
H. O. Dwight, Turkish Life in War Time, page 15.
BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor
in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.
Basil, or Vassili, I., Grand Duke of Volodomir, A. D. 1272-1276
Basil II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1025.
Basil, or Vassili, II., Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1389-1425.
Basil III. (The Blind), Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1425-1462.
Basil IV., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1505-1533.
BASILEUS.
"From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia
had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of
Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first
distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile
provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman
throne."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BASILIAN DYNASTY, The.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
BASILICÆ.
"Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at
Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although
their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman
creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly
Roman,--the administration of law and the transaction of
merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest
attaches to them from their connection with the first
Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the
Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special
needs of public business. ... Generally, however, they took
the form most adapted to their purposes--a semi-circular apse
or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades
and galleries on each side for the transaction of business.
They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as
reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. ... It
is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ,
and not the public edifices, served as the model for the
Christian Basilica."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.
ALSO IN: A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions,
chapter 9.
BASILIKA, The.
A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the
Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil
I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to
1057, book 2, chapter 1, section 1.
BASING HOUSE, The Storming and Destruction of.
"Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near
Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal
castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a
thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held
out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and
blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take
it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to
the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring
incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the
storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of
October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting,
one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put
to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the
destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and
the very ruins carted away."
F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner, History of the Civil War,
chapter 37 (volume 2).
Mrs. Thompson, Recollections of Literary Characters and
Celebrated Places, volume 2, chapter 1.
{271}
BASLE, Council of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
BASLE, Treaties of (1795).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY),
and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BASOCHE.--BASOCHIENS.
"The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement'
[Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain.
... The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302,
by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la
Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for
judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that
might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against
them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called
'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should
have an annual 'montre' or review. ... Under the reign of
Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche
amounted to nearly 10,000. ... The members of the Basoche took
upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which
they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to
have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in
Paris. ...At the commencement of the Revolution, the
Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with
epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards
disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."
History of Paris (London: G. B. Whittaker, 1827),
volume 2, page 106.
BASQUES, The.
"The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain
join, gives us a locality ... where, although the towns, like
Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the
country people are Basques or Biscayans--Basques or Biscayans
not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper
Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their
name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the
ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they
designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly
connected with it. The native name is derived from the root
Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria
when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken
of."
H. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 4, section 4.
See, also, IBERIANS, THE WESTERN, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.
BASSANO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER.)
BASSEIN, Treaty of (1802).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BASSORAH.
See BUSSORAH.
BASTARNÆ, The. See PEUCINI.
BASTILLE, The.
"The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given
to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military
force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of
Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places
of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in
France that of Paris, ... which at first was called the
Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of
St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of
melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following
circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war
with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was
considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital
to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost
of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other
defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance
of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This
was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They
were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under
Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite
to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of
the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four
angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many
enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to
perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which,
according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After
some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another
prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the
insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After
the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king,
Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding
four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form
it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or
parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers,
each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine
feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four
on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the
Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet
wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on
one side. ... The Bastille was now completed (1383), and
though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the
fortress underwent no important change. ... Both as a place of
military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the
Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."
History of the Bastille
(Chambers's Miscellany, no. 132, volume 17).
For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille
by the people, in 1789,
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY).
ALSO IN:
D. Bingham, The Bastille.
R. A. Davenport, History of the Bastile.
BASTITANI, The.
See TURDETANI.
BASUTOS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
BATAVIA (Java), Origin of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
BATAVIAN REPUBLIC, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
{272}
BATAVIANS, OR BATAVI, The.
"The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the
[Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps
by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on
the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed
by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so
nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and
southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic--at least the
local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still
borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck
with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were,
especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts,
obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive
position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military
system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from
taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely
than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton
furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers;
besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken
especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions
was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were
accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and
swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true
soldiers."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.
"When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before
our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early
inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably
Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous
inundation had swept away their miserable homes. ... The
island was deserted of its population. At about the same
period a civil dissension among the Chatti--a powerful German
race within the Hercynian forest--resulted in the expatriation
of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in
the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,'
and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or
Batavians."
J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
section 2.
BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
Revolt of Civilis.
"Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the
suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he
owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend
for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight
Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem
to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins.
Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people.
Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of
the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was
the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had
well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower
Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who
had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic
name has perished. ... After a quarter of a century's service
he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both
falsely charged with conspiracy. ... Desire to avenge his own
wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew
that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. ...
By his courage, eloquence and talent for political
combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all
the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief
moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. ...
The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully
preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most
elaborate pictures. ... The battles, the sieges, the defeats,
the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly
when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described
by the great historian in his most powerful manner. ... The
struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and
many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. ... He accepted the
offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. ...
A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was
broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon
the severed sides. ... Here the story abruptly terminates. The
remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that
broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears
forever."
J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,
sections. 3-4.
ALSO IN: Tacitus, History, books. 4-5.
----------BATAVIANS: End----------
BATH, The Order of the.
"The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King
George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the
Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with
various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that
it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of
chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the
ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and
from that period until the reign of the first George, the old
institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch,
however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The
Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military
Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued
for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number
of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the
Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has
since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three
classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not
to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second
Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102
for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class,
"Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil
service.
Sir B. Burke, Book of Orders of Knighthood, page 104.
BATH, in Roman times.
See AQUÆ: SOLIS.
BATHS OF CARACALLA, Nero, etc.
See THERMÆ.
BATONIAN WAR, The.
A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6,
involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of
three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from
the names of two leaders of the insurgents,--Bato the
Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 1.
BATOUM:
Ceded to Russia.
Declared a free port.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
BATTIADÆ, The.
See CYRENE.
BATTLE ABBEY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).
BATTLE ABOVE THE CLOUDS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
BATTLE OF THE KEGS, The.
See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.
{273}
BATTLE OF THE NATIONS (Leipsic).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).
BATTLE OF THE THREE EMPERORS.
The battle of Austerlitz
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER)--was so called by
Napoleon.
BATTLES.
The battles of which account is given in this work are so
numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
references to them under this general heading. They are
severally indexed under the names by which they are
historically known.
BAURE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
BAUTZEN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).
BAUX, Lords of; Gothic Origin of the.
The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha"
("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish
in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc,
under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that
family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30, note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BAVARIA:
The name.
Bavaria derived its name from the Boii.
R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 20.
See, also, BOIANS.
The Ethnology of.
"Bavaria ... falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the
Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the
descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either
Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman
superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and
Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine
completes the evolution of their present Germanic character.
Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the
Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally
Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population
of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. ...
In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni
extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. ... The northwestern
parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning.
South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place
the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman
province. ... Its present character has arisen from an
extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."
R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.
BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.
"It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first
become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at
what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the
previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we
may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained
independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy.
The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and
Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who
lived still further to the north, was the country of the
Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by
the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and
Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank
King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost
surrounded by the Frankish territories. ... Whenever they may
have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the
time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that
event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had
become subjects of the Merovingian kings."
W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.
BAVARIA: A. D. 843-962.
The ancient Duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
BAVARIA: A. D. 876.
Added to the Austrian March.
See Austria: A. D. 805-1246.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1071-1178.
The Dukes of the House of Guelf.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1101.
Disastrous Crusade of Duke Welf.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1125-1152.
The origin of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183.
Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline
Conflicts.
The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.
See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1156.
Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct
Duchy.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.
The House of Wittelsbach.
Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine.
Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.
When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban
of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D.
1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were
divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the
Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of
Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal
family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the
sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure
regained those rights which in former times belonged to his
ancestors."
Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, page 276.
"Otto ... was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in
combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had
already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in
Europe is of such ancient extraction. ... Bavaria was as yet
destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into
consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon,
already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and
residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. ... A further accession of
dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the
acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was
now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. ... His son
Otto the Illustrious, remaining ... true to the imperial
house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for
several years under an interdict. ... Upon the death of Otto a
partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became
to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel
and of secret or open enmity. ... In [the] dark and dreadful
period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all
men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing
appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. ... Finally in 1273
Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the
long-unoccupied throne. ... He won over the Bavarian princes
by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage.
{274}
Louis remained faithful and rendered him good
service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war
upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote,
deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of
the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards,
for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine
exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in
1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D.
1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine,
and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.
J. I. von Döllinger, The House of Wittelsbach (Studies
in European History, chapter 2).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1314.
Election of Louis to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1500.
Formation of the Circle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1610.
The Duke at the head of the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1619.
The Duke in command of the forces of the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1623.
Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector
Palatine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1632.
Occupation by Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
Ravaged by the Swedes and French.
Truce made and renounced by the Elector.
The last campaigns of the war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1648.
Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of
Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY);
1694; 1695-1696.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1700.
Claims of the Electoral Prince on the Spanish Crown.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1702.
The Elector joins France against the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1703.
Successes of the French and Bavarians.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1704.
Ravaged, crushed and surrendered by the Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1705.
Dissolution of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1714.
The Elector restored to his Dominions.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1740.
Claims of the Elector to the Austrian succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1742.
The Elector crowned Emperor.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April).
The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER), and 1743.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June).
The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive.
The Austrians in Possession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1745.
Death of the Emperor-Elector.
Peace with Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
The Succession question.
"With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December,
1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became
extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria ... came to an end. By
virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria
ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented
by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the
Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable
additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the
west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were
based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which
Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law,
Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had
since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce
the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to
come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who
had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very
keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty
the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty
(3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put
forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed
to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once
despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of
Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture.
... There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be
expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the
fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of
upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters
except those who were immediately interested, the elector of
Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of
Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and
Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless
Charles Theodore. ... Frederick, left to himself, despatched
an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been
joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the
threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a
battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed
negotiation. ... France and Russia undertook to mediate, and
negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was
signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which
had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine,
and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district
from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the
succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and
Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were
recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off
by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory
part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and
Russia. ... On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick
and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of
aggrandisement had been foiled."
R. Lodge, History of Modern Europe, chapter 20, section 3,
ALSO IN: T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6,
chapter 8 (volume 3).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1801-1803.
Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
{275}
BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806.
Aggrandized by Napoleon.
Created a Kingdom.
Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806,
and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1809.
The revolt in the Tyrol.
Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1813.
Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation.
Union with the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria.
Territorial compensations.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF, and FRANCE: A. D. 1814
(APRIL-JUNE).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March).
Revolutionary outbreak.
Expulsion of Lola Montez.
Abdication of the King.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).
BAVARIA: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
BAVARIA: A. D. 1870-1871.
Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon
transformed into the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.
----------BAVARIA: End----------
BAVAY, Origin of.
See NERVII.
BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BAYARD, The Chevalier: His knightly deeds and his death.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
BAYEUX TAPESTRY.
A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20
inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at
Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman
invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or
less of names and explanatory inscriptions. Mr. E. A.
Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A) says: "It will be
seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the
Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not
hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place
among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a
contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I
entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully
entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to
have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably
designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral
church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in
the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the
room under glass.
BAYEUX, The Saxons of.
See SAXONS OF BAYEUX
BAYLEN, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
BAYOGOULAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
BAYONNE:
Conference of Catharine de'Medici and the Duke of Alva (1565).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
BEACONSFIELD (Disraeli) Ministries.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859; 1868-1870, and
1873-1880.
BEAR FLAG, The.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
BEARN: The rise of the Counts.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
BEARN: A. D. 1620.
Absorbed and incorporated in the Kingdom of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
BEARN: A. D. 1685.
The Dragonnade.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
----------BEARN: End----------
BEATOUN, Cardinal, The assassination of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
BEAUFORT, N. C., Capture of, by the National forces (1862).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL:
NORTH CAROLINA).
BEAUGÉ, Battle of.
The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in
Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of
France; the Duke of Clarence slain.
BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
BEAUMONT, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BEAUREGARD, General G. T.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
At the first Battle of Bull Run.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
Command in the Potomac district.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-
APRIL: VIRGINIA).
Command in the West.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL:
TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI).
The Defence of Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER:
SOUTH CAROLINA).
BEAUVAIS, Origin of.
See BELGÆ.
BEBRYKIANS, The.
See BITHYNIANS.
BEC, Abbey of.
One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of
the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or
rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious
knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his
hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others
around him and resulted in the formation of a religious
community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to
Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of
Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of
Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who
succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The
teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says Mr. Green in
his Short History of the English People, into the most
famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave
of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to
the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law
and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical
skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace
their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as
transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the
appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be
enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave
Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which
hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."
E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 8.
{276}
BECHUANAS, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BECKET, Thomas, and King Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
BED-CHAMBER QUESTION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
BED OF JUSTICE.
"The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the
registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a
'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in
state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken
his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a
decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was
held that this personal interference of the sovereign
suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior
magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without
a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows:
'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que
les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the
decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de
justice.'"
Students' History of France, note to chapter 19.
See, also, PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
"The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much
discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there
justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from
the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back
and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."
J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 388,
foot-note.
An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of
Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign
of Louis XV., will be found in the
Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon, abridged translation
of St. John, volume 4, chapter 5-7.
BEDR, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
BEDRIACUM, Battles of.
See ROME: A. D. 69.
BEECHY HEAD, Battle of (A. D. 1690).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
BEEF-EATERS, The.
See YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.
BEEF STEAK CLUB, The.
See CLUBS: THE BEEF STEAK.
BEER-ZATH, Battle of.
The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas
Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army
of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 11.
ALSO IN: H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.
BEG.
A Turkish title, signifying prince or lord; whence, also, Bey.
See BEY.
BEGGARS (Gueux) of the Netherland Revolt.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
BEGGARS OF THE SEA.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
BEGUINES, OR BEGHINES.--BEGHARDS.
Weaving Brothers.
Lollards.
Brethren of the Free Spirit.
Fratricelli.
Bizochi.
Turlupins.
"In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly,
stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le
Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town.
Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often
happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching.
... This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold
and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the
destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life.
With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square
of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and
at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows,
one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half
monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was
very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation
bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the
day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other
hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their
houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into
the homes of the townspeople. ... Thus these women, though
pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the
world. ... Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got'
set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines.
Different authorities give different origins of this word. ...
Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the
charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the
Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards
or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed
from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible;
but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M.
Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish
word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had
been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become.
With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the
Netherlands and into France and Germany. ... Lambert may have
lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken;
but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for
Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet
congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad
in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only
to pray and do deeds of mercy. ... The success of the Beguines
had made them an example. ... Before St. Francis and St.
Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently
grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of
fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse
of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their
rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in
iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and
stitching together--these men silent, pious, thoughtful,
joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the
Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no
vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly
life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure
they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. ... Such
were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres
Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more
generally called them."
A. M. F. Robinson, The End of the Middle Ages, 1.
{277}
"The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than
in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin
in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for
the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and
burying the dead. ... Very early, however, an element of a
different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about
the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances
are laid to their charge. .... The charges brought against the
later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand,
with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending
with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and
Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz.,
an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a
propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit
of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less
pantheistical mysticism. ... They ... declared that the time
of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to
embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own
professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the
divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they
formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself
one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of
this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted
impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good
and godly."
C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation,
volume 2, pages 14-16.
"The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be
used for devotees who, without being members of any regular
monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness;
and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of
sectaries was easy--more especially as many of these found it
convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in
the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But
on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent
persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad
to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant
orders. ... In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with
the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still
remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their
origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day.
... Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of
the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the
profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other
blasphemous names. ... Among those who were confounded with
the beghards--partly because, like them, they abounded along
the Rhine--were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit.
These appear in various places under various names. They wore
a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to
contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to
contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they
lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost
pantheistic. ... The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit
were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion
of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."
J. C. Robertson, History of Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 7 (volume 6).
"Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy
the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and
France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface
VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to
see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every
possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in
Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de
paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were
Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of
Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed
by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others,
and therefore possessed no property, either individually or
collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to
day by begging. ... They predicted a reformation and
purification of the church. ... They extolled Celestine V. as
the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the
succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied
to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its
associates and dependents, who observed the third rule
prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious
observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse,
cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit
private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly
occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also
the sect of the Fratricelli ... had numerous Tertiarii of its
own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in
France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the
Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the
Fratricelli ... only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli
were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the
Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. ...
Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were
the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in
this century, but now first came into notice. ... Concerning
the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. ... The
origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from
substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at
Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the
Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils
condemned."
J. L. Von Mosheim, Inst's of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41,
and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note.
ALSO IN: L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Fra Dolcino and his
Times.
See, also, PICARDS.
BEGUMS OF OUDE, Warren Hastings and the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
BEHISTUN, Rock of.
"This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between
Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination
of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for
sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the
great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros
range, as a place where they might conveniently set up
memorials of their exploits. ... The tablet and inscriptions
of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times,
are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock,
and at a considerable elevation."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the
district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest
of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley
of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.
BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY, and Arbitration.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
{278}
BEIRUT, Origin of.
See BERYTUS.
BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063.
Bela II., A. D. 1131-1141.
Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196.
Bela IV., A. D. 1235-1270.
BELCHITE, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.
The Roman name of Land's End, England.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
BELFORT.
Siege by the Germans (1870-1871).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
BELGÆ, The.
"This Belgian confederation included the people of all the
country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic
on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the
Mediomatrici and Treviri. ... The old divisions of France
before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some
degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar,
and the names of the people are still retained with little
alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the
ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the
Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of
Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne
and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci
were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their
chief town, which at some time received the name of
Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on
the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the
Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief
place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old
division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara):
their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini,
or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The
Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides
of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of
the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The
Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the
Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus
(Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and
Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones:
their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta
Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the
lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the
name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the
Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and
were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.
"Cæsar ... informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the
Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the
offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. ... Strabo
... by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of
this ... race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German,
though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central
region."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 5.
ALSO IN: E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 12.
BELGÆ: B. C. 57.
Cæsar's campaign against the confederacy.
In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he
led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in
his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The
many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a
great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were
able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The
tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and
placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered
his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani,
marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these
swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the
banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to
pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made
submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii,
who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci,
the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a
struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the
Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the
banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his
veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous
charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with
the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over
the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was
not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved
in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans
long remembered, and never failed to signalize their
formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient
prowess became from that day the principal monument of their
name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh
annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost
to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in
secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the
conqueror's clemency. ... 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we
have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only
remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
Julius Cæsar, Gallic Wars, book 2.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.
Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 5.
BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The.
Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The
territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties
of Wiltshire and Somerset.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
BELGIUM: Ancient and Mediaeval History.
See BELGÆ, NERVII, FRANKS, LORRAINE, FLANDERS, LIEGE.
NETHERLANDS.
BELGIUM: Modern History.
See NETHERLANDS.
BELGRADE:
Origin.
During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the
Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city
of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube,
was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the
extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who
raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city--the
Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic
name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by
Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba
Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 46, note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BELGIUM: A. D. 1425.
Acquired by Hungary and fortified against the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
{279}
BELGIUM: A. D. 1442.
First repulse of the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1456.
Second repulse of the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
and TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1521.
Siege and capture by Solyman the Magnificent.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1688-1690.
Taken by the Austrians and recovered by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1717.
Recovery from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1739.
Restored to the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1789-1791.
Taken by the Austrians and restored to the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
BELGIUM: A. D. 1806.
Surprised and taken by the Servians.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
BELGIUM: A. D. 1862.
Withdrawal of Turkish troops.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
----------BELGIUM: End----------
BELGRADE, The Peace of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
BELIK, Battle on the (Carrhæ--B. C. 53).
See ROME: B. C. 57-52.
BELISARIUS, Campaigns of.
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534,
and ROME: A. D. 535-553.
BELIZE, or British Honduras.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
BELL ROLAND, The great.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
BELLE ALLIANCE, Battle of La.
The battle of Waterloo
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE)--is so called by the
Prussians.
BELLE ISLE PRISON-PEN, The.
See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.
BELLOVACI, The.
See BELGÆ.
BELLVILLE, Battle, of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
BELMONT, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
Bema, The.
See PNYX.
BEMIS HEIGHTS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BENARES.
"The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity.
It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even
date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself
over Northern India. ... It is certain that the city is
regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a
notion derived both from tradition and from their own
writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in
ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in
all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some
subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the
religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of
its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants--of its
temples and reservoirs--of its wells and streams--of the very
soil that is trodden--of the very air that is breathed--and of
everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for
thousands of years. ... Previously to the introduction of the
Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of
the land,--the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its
authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and
affection with which the native community regard her in the
present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism
commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable
that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation,
the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread
religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist
period in India--a period extending from 700 to 1,000
years--she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had
previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that
era ... clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of
those days regarded the city with much the same kind of
veneration as the Hindu does now."
M. A. Sherring, The Sacred City of the Hindus, chapter
1.
For an account of the English annexation of Benares,
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685.
Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858.
Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903.
Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965.
Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974.
Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984.
Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024.
Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048.
Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059.
Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304.
Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342.
Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon).
Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730.
Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.
BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
The rule of St. Benedict.
"There were many monasteries in the West before the time of
St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly
considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only
founded an order to which many religious houses became
attached, but he established a rule for their government
which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of
monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries,
or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi.
Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of
Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established
in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a
superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of
Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which
became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according
to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated
especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed
the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable
communities submitting to that sovereign code. ... Neither in
the East nor in the West were the monks originally
ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that
they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the
ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. ... As
missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in
extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The
monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to
the monastery. ... To enable him to work efficiently, it was
necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of
Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict
asceticism."
C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.
{280}
"Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to
spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he
made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation
of his rule. ... In order to banish indolence, which he called
the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of
every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained
that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times
a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and
two hours to reading. ... Those who are skilled in the
practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the
permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided
himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to
the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had
humbled himself. ... Obedience is also to his eyes a work,
obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of
all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the
sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of
the will. ... Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret
hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and
absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and
without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible
and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a
humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted
to him, was not accepted by his superiors."
The Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, book 4,
section 2 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 2.
S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, No. 10.
J. H. Newman, Mission of St. Benedict (Hist. Sketches,
volume 2).
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
volume 2, chapter 4, section 43-45.
E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the
Middle Ages, book 3, no. 1.
See, also, CAPUCHINS.
BENEFICIUM.--COMMENDATION.
Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources--the
beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been
specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a
subject population which admitted of any amount of extension
in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system
originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of
their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a
special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by
landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be
received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or
service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the
protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure
placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the
practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put
himself under the personal care of a lord, but without
altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his
estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his
hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which
the connexion was formed."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9,
section 93.
ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1.
See, also, SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
BENEFIT OF CLERGY.
"Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the
church was that which conferred on its members immunity from
the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the
jurisdiction of secular tribunals. ... So priceless a
prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute
struggle. ... To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime
should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that
civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be
referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a
claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be
lightly accorded. ... The persistence of the church, backed up
by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally
triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was
acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of
Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in
the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the
privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the
benefit of clergy. ... The disastrous result of the quarrel
between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it
necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. ... As time
passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself.
That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was
taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be
the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a
free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters.
... Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared
felonies without benefit of clergy. ... Much legislation
ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the
privilege in various offences. ... Early in the reign of Anne
the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by
abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon
on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not
until the present century was well advanced that this remnant
of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and
8 Geo. iv. c. 28."
H. C. Lea, Studies in Church History, part 2.
ALSO IN:
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
section 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3).
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
BENEVENTO, OR GRANDELLA, Battle of (1266).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
BENEVENTUM:
The Lombard Duchy.
The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th
centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the
Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the
territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne
reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty,
after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was
afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento,
Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090;
also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774,
and AMALFI.
BENEVENTUM, Battle of (B. C. 275).
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
BENEVOLENCES.
"The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time
[England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a
resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II.
and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under
Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the
intervening kings. ... Such evidence as exists shows us Edward
IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts
of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new
year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will
offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings
of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the
name and the particular property of every man in the country
who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such
meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18, section 696.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.
{281}
BENGAL, The English acquisition of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757; 1757; and 1757-1772.
BENGAL: "Permanent Settlement."
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
BENNINGTON, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BENTINCK, Lord William, The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
BENTONSVILLE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
BEOTHUK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.
BERBERS, The.
See LIBYANS; NUMIDIANS; EGYPT, ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
PEOPLE; and MAROCCO.
BERENICE, Cities of.
Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a
city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave
the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port
of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were
founded at points further south on the same coast, while a
fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great
Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,
chapter 15, section 1.
BERESINA, Passage of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BERESTECZKO, Battle of (1651).
See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
BERGEN, Battles of (1759 and 1799).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST);
and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
BERGEN-OP-ZOOM, A. D. 1588.
The siege raised.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
BERGEN A. D. 1622.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BERGEN: A. D. 1747-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
----------BERGEN: End----------
BERGER.
See BIRGER.
BERGERAC, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
BERKELEY, Lord, The Jersey Grant to.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664.-1667, to 1688-1738.
BERKELEY, Sir William, Government of Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1642--1649, to 1660-1677.
BERLIN: A. D. 1631.--Forcible entry of Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
BERLIN: A. D. 1675.
Threatened by the Swedes.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
BERLIN: A. D. 1757.
Dashing Austrian attack.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
BERLIN: A. D. 1760.
Taken and plundered by the Austrians and Russians.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1760.
BERLIN: A. D. 1806.
Napoleon in possession.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
BERLIN: A. D. 1848.
Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens.
Continued disorder.
State of siege.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), and 1848-1850.
----------BERLIN: End----------
BERLIN CONFERENCE (1884-5), The.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889;
and CONGO FREE STATE.
BERLIN, Congress and Treaty of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
BERLIN DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
BERMUDA HUNDRED.
See HUNDRED, THE.
BERMUDA HUNDRED, Butler's Army at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.
BERMUDAS, The.
English Discovery of the islands (1609).
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
BERMUDO,
King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791.
Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999.
Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.
BERN, Dietrich of.
See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
BERNADOTTE, Career of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807;
SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810;
GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST),
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BERNARD, St., and the Second Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
BERNE, A. D. 1353.
Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of
High Germany.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
BERNE: A. D. 1798.
Occupation by the French.
The plundering of the Treasury.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
----------BERNE: End----------
BERNICIA, The Kingdom of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633;
and SCOTLAND: 7th CENTURY.
BERSERKER.--BÆRSÆRK.
"The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived
from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the
title was applied [among the Northmen] ... were stated to be
in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a
shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were
sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of
Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon.
The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to
afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to
differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear
to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery.
They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang,
or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman
strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. ... After an
attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman
influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or
cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk
suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."
J. F. Vicary, Saga Time, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
P. B. Du Chaillu, The Viking Age, volume 2, chapter 26.
{282}
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333.
Conquest by the English.
At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish
nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid
upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made
his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only
rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath
by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss
of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown
down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders
who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were
burned alive in it. ... The town was ruined forever, and the
great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a
petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick
was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat
Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The
English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent
Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in
which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of
Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of
Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown.
Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the
realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had
its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and
the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England
'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory
of its peculiar position."-
J. R. Green, Short History of the English People,
chapter 4, section 3 and 6.
ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 17.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
BERWICK, Pacification of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
BERWICK, Treaty of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
BERYTUS.
The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa,
B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.
BERYTUS: A. D. 551.
Its Schools.
Its Destruction by Earthquake.
The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by
earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the
coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil
law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the
schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the
age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might
have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BERYTUS: A. D. 1111.
Taken by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.
----------BERYTUS: End----------
BESANÇON: Origin.
See VESONTIO.
BESANÇON: A. D. 1152-1648.
A Free City of the Empire.
See FRANCHE COMTÉ.
BESANÇON: A. D. 1674.
Siege and capture by Vauban.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
BESSI, The.
The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the
mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of
the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the
conqueror of Mithridates.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 18, section 6.
BESSIN, The.
The district of Bayeux.
See SAXONS OF BAYEUX.
BETH-HORON, Battles of.
The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites"
who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish
conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one
of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so
profound has been the indifference, first of the religious
world, and then (through their example or influence) of the
common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals,
that the very name of this great battle is far less known to
most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish
Church, lecture 11.
In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the
brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and
162.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12.
Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it
witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.
BETHSHEMESH, Battle of.
Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah,
defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of
Jerusalem to be thrown down.
2 Chronicles, xxv.
BETH-ZACHARIAH, Battle of.
A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas·
Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus
Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 9.
BETHZUR, Battle of.
Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus,
the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165,
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.
BEVERHOLT, Battle of (1381).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
BEY.--BEYLERBEY.--PACHA.--PADISCHAH.
"The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time
of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation
organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the
Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the
class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office
obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered
under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district,
and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and
their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to
us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not
strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even
military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally
the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person
to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign
employed. ... The title of Pacha was not at first applied
among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded
armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas,
that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary
men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those
whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and
important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost
synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which
the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists
have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is
an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial
Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman
Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or
banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."
Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter
6.
{283}
BEYLAN, Battle of (1832).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
BEYROUT, Origin of.
See BERYTUS.
BEZANT, The.
The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth
a little less than ten English shillings--$2.50.
BEZIERES, The Massacre at.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
BHARADARS.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
BHONSLA RAJA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BHURTPORE, Siege of(1805).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
BIANCHI AND NERI (The Whites and Blacks).
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
BIANCHI, or White Penitents.
See WHITE PENITENTS.
BIBERACH, Battles of (1796 and 1800).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
and A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
BIBRACTE.
See GAULS.
BIBROCI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is
suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks
County.
BICAMERAL SYSTEM, The.
This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a
legislative body into two chambers--such as the House of Lords
and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of
Representatives in the United States of America.
BICOQUE OR BICOCCA, La, Battle of (1522).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
BIG BETHEL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
BIG BLACK, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
BIGERRIONES, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
BIGI, OR GREYS, The.
One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time
of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the
partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or
Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
BILL OF RIGHTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
BILLAUD-VARENNES and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public
Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
BILOXIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
BIMINI, The island of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
BIRAPARACH, Fortress of.
See JUROIPACH.
BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319.
Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.
BISHOPS' WAR, The First and Second.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871;
and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
BISSEXTILE YEAR.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.
"Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus.
eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians,
Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,--all recognized branches of
the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians
especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and
reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of
as Asiatic Thracians,--while on the other hand various tribes
among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or
Thynians,--so little difference was there in the population on
the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and
sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called
Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far
southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 16.
The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated
by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the
Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an
independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle
of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians,
successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors
in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed
until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed
his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.
BITONTO, Battle of (1734).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
BITURIGES, The.
See ÆEDUI;
also BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.
BIZOCHI, The.
See BEGUINES, ETC.
BIZYE.
See THRACIANS.
BLACK ACTS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
BLACK DEATH, The.
"The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre
of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was
accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and
atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive
character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the
first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and
even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a
singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive
character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have
travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It
appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place
of its origin at about the same time in which it made its
appearance in Europe. ... The disease still exists under the
name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia
Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a
disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system
seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in
which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood
thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on
the skin.
{284}
Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The
storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year
1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical
phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in
the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The
Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of
the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few
men of science of the time, to move forward with measured
steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and
fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great
physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the
disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had
been projected into the atmosphere. ... The Black Death
appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the
middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and
Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden
in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from
England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and
Greenland. ... It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after
it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the
circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which
have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was
checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. ...
Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to
25,000,000."
J. E. T. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices,
volume 1, chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
J. F. C. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349;
FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348;
FLORENCE: A. D. 1348;
JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.
BLACK EAGLE, Order of the.
A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III.,
elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.
BLACK FLAGS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
BLACK FRIARS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
BLACK GUELFS (NERI).
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
BLACK HAWK WAR, The.
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757:
BLACK PRINCE, The wars of the.
See POITIERS; FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380;
and SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.
BLACK ROBE, Counsellors of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
BLACK ROD.
"The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the
House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms
to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are
bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers,
even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an
obstreperous member. ... His [Black Rod's] most disturbing
occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the
Lords to the Commons. ... No sooner do the policemen herald
his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower
Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for
admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this
has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair,
and then--with repeated acts of obeisance--walks slowly to the
table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance
in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's
speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to
various bills. ... The consequence is nearly always the same.
The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins
Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less
orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's
Chamber. ... No matter what the subject under consideration,
Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check ... till the
journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus
caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So
great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the
Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-
Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure, page 11.
BLACK ROOD, of Scotland.
See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.
BLACKBURN'S FORD, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BLACKFEET.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
BLADENSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BLAIR, Francis P., Sr., in the "Kitchen
Cabinet" of President Jackson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
BLAIR, General Francis P., Jr.
Difficulties with General Fremont.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).
BLANCHE, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1425-1441.
BLANCO, General Guzman, The dictatorship of.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
BLAND SILVER BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.
BLANII, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
BLANKETEERS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
BLENEAU, Battle of (1652).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
BLENHEIM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
BLENNERHASSET, Harman, and Aaron Burr.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.
An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman
Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a
charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was
drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous
of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the
treasonable project.
BLOCK BOOKS.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
BLOCK ISLAND, The name.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1610-1614.
BLOCKADE, Paper.
This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent
power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or
certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade,
without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the
declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the
"Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
{285}
BLOIS, Treaties of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
BLOOD COUNCIL, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
BLOOD, or Kenai Indians.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
BLOODY ANGLE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
BLOODY ASSIZE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).
BLOODY BRIDGE, Ambuscade at (A. D. 1763).
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BLOODY BROOK, Battle of.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.
BLOODY MARSH, The Battle of the.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
BLOREHEATH, Battle of (A. D. 1459).
Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in
Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000
Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that
number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won
a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that
occurred in the Wars of the Roses.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813
(APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.
BLUE, Boys in.
See BOYS IN BLUE.
BLUE LICKS, Battle of (A. D. 1782).
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.
"An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813]
occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as
additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the
enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the
winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his
two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt
by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy
Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the
British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous
information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he
stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the
report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made
to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were
burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals
to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had
been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty
persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear
that Decatur himself was one of the number. ... Such a clamor
was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of
Congress moved for a committee of investigation. ... The
inquiry was ... quashed; but the story spread and grew, and
the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized
as 'blue-light Federalists.'"--
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 6, page 467.
BLUE PARTY (of Venezuela), The.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
BLUE RIBBON, The Order of the.
See SERAPHIM.
BLUES, Roman Faction of the.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
BOABDIL, The last Moorish King in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
BOADICEA, Revolt of.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
BOAIRE, The.
A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the
ancient Irish.
BOARIAN TRIBUTE, The.
Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating
exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster
by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which
was maintained for five hundred years.
BOCAGE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL).
BOCASOTI, The.
See BEGUINES, &c.
BOCLAND.--BOOKLAND.
See ALOD.
BŒOTARCHS.
See BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.
BŒOTIA.--BŒOTIANS.
"Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which
it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the
other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its
ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy
under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them.
Even of this territory, destined during the second period of
this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we
know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We
first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes
between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.
In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory,
subsequently Bœotian--the Copaic valley in the north--was
occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose
chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians
of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in
legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was
Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from
Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus
(Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the
Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of
Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same
place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos--the
assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the
Epigoni--were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of
the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and
their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given
way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name
Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of
the Thebes of historic times.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 14;
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 4.
"That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a
significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the
locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the
pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The
immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country
derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history,
destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without
succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of
conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious
development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of
culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened.
The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be
honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount
Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated.
{286}
In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work,
and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with
Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger
inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards
music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the
flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic
morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in
Bœotia. ... And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for
attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in
such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. ... The
Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor
was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes,
which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than
the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount
Parnes across to the Bœotian."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.
See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.
"The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went,
seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal
Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than
the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over
the other cities. ... The common government was carried on in
the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important
magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number,
whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek
archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. ... Thebes chose
two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."
E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,
chapter 4, section 2.
BOERS, Boer War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
BOGDANIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-15TH CENTURIES
(ROUMANIA, ETC.)
BOGESUND, Battle of (1520).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BOGOMILIANS, The.
A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace
and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered
persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They
sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile
to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or
less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their
name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog,"
signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that
"Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct
designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was
burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at
Constantinople, A. D. 1118.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
716-1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA,
ETC.)
BOGOTA, The founding of the city (1538).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
BOHEMIA, Derivation of the name.
See BOIANS.
BOHEMIA:
Its people and their early history.
"Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia
having been politically connected with the empire of the
Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element
Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and
Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic
population of that kingdom--Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call
themselves--is either recent in origin or secondary to any
German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history.
In other words, at the beginning of the historical period
Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D.
550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The
notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political
relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account
is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably,
from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians,
or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the
parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In
Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky
derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e.,
the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo,
the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder
of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D.
624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become
united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son
Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad;
and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no
sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names
of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh--Wenceslaus,
Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian
connexion and the process of Germanizing began. ... The
history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia,
except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars,
and other less important populations may have effected a
greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh,
speaking the Tshekh language--the language, probably, of the
ancient Quadi."
R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 11.
BOHEMIA: 7th Century.
The Yoke of the Avars broken.
The Kingdom of Samo.
See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.
BOHEMIA: 9th Century.
Subject to the Moravian Kingdom of Svatopluk.
See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.
BOHEMIA: 13th Century.
The King made a Germanic Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276.
War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg.
His defeat and death.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1310.
Acquisition of the crown by John of Luxembourg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1347.
Charles IV. elected to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty.
Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.
The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing
the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in
definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which
had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty.
Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been
acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz
(Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces,
were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom
of Bohemia."
L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 11.
{287}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1364.
Reversion of the crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.
John Hus, and the movement of Religious Reformation.
"Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as
remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which
for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all
efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif
who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan
and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously
assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed
not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian
reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent
and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper
forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall
find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and
faithful preachers. ... John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the
central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year
1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of
Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise
so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he
began to deliver lectures there. ... He soon signalized
himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to
hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high
places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving
the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks
unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support
and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also
within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid
them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury,
their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon
him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere
spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. ...
While matters were in this strained condition, events took
place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story
that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in
bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to
pass them by. ... The University of Prague, though recently
founded--it only dated back to the year 1348--was now, next
after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in
Europe. ... This University, like that of Paris, on the
pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four
'nations'--four groups, that is, or families of scholars--each
of these having in academical affairs a single collective
vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish,
and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair
division--two German and two Slavonic; but in practical
working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and
other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact
German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and
the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on
every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of
this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the
teaching of Wiclif ... matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus,
who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian
language and literature, had more than a theological interest
in the matter,--by Jerome [of Prague],--by a large number of
the Bohemian nobility,--King Wenzel published an edict whereby
the relations of natives and foreigners were completely
reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the
Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a
shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of
one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so
earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students
alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of
five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival
University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand
students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they
regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they
spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of
him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had
left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer
field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend;
they became more confused and threatening every day; until
presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality
which a century later did a still more effectual work, served
to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of
his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of
Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become
a constant accompaniment of this,--Indulgences to match. But
to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous
indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive
part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which
should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters
were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D.
1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles
of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian
difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make
answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four
weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and
Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he
was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a
free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect,
who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect
him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning
from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and
heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise
and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke,
threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force;
but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who
represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a
safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a
region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected
to be convinced. ... More than seven months elapsed before Hus
could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to
him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),--if indeed
such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life,
and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted
and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,'
'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,--he bore
himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and
dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought
against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which
he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of
retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned,
sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415.
His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the
following May.
R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediaeval Church History,
lecture 22.
ALSO IN:
E. H. Gillett, Life and times of John Hus.
A. H. Wratislaw, John Hus.
A. Neander, General History of Christian Religion,
volume 9, part 2.
{288}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1410.
Election of King Sigismund to the imperial throne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
The Hussite Wars.
The Reformation checked.
"The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce
excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them
against the charge of heresy and protesting against the
injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or
500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was
that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed
to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be
reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress
the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which
the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united
in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely
taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be
enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia,
favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all
priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both
forms' were driven from the churches. ... When the Council of
Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor]
hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who
were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The
Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize
themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419,
assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor,
and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska,
'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that
several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel
arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the
spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague,
marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at
their head, and took forcible possession of several churches.
When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release
of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from
the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled
the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears
of those below. ... The Hussites were already divided into two
parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines,
from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol
[referring to their demand for the administration of the
eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque
specie'--whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other
radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed
their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of
brotherly equality through which they expected to establish
the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation
obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against
the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen
years of war which followed; but they always remained
separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant.
Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice,
commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a
friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man,
bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow
across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red
moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks
among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy
and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he
knew neither tolerance nor mercy. . . . Sigismund does not
seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the
movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months
afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all
Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420
a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund
marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the
demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.--The
word of God to be freely preached; 2.--The sacrament to be
administered in both forms; 3.---The clergy to possess no
property or temporal authority; 4.--All sins to be punished by
the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these
articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal
Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of
November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska,
and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The
dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out
again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail
among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused
to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a
time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition
through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less
than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and
monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. ... While
besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining
eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before.
The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout
Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men,
commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the
west. ... But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his
wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors,
whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought;
the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and
lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about
and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his
appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at
Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the
Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. ... A third
Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the
Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from
lack of support.
{289}
The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer
than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking
Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in
coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city
in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke
Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim
to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the
German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into
a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of
the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as
their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth
styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest,
Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army,
in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the
result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius
the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid
waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which
met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the
Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and
the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and
fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and
munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who
was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made
several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one
religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from
becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers
of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions
into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite
name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one
hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned,
tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such
quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to
transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg
and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to
the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people
weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a
Council for the discussion of the difficulty. ... The German
princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000
men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under
the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of
Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south.
Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the
14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won
another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was
literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions
and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the
field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and
eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as
they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were
invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn
stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair
discussion of their demands. ... In 1433, finally 300
Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They
demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles
upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of
talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and
promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any
further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course
compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which
proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same
year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands
were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave
the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason,
the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the
moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to
suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed,
but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were
defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken,
Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the
members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was
never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."
B. Taylor, History of Germany, chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in
Bohemia, introductory chapter.
E. H. Gillett, Life and Times of John Hus,
volume 2, chapter 13-18.
E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas
Fratrum, chapter 9.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
Organization of the Utraquist National Church.
Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
Regency of George Podiebrad.
Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.
"The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the
Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the
Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans
unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who
became more and more prominent, until he exercised a
commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. ... At the diet of
1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. ... Meantime
Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made
demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged
himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a
meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the
market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of
Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew
ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the
mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital
when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that
Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near
Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short
by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same
year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor
and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave
in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia
was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a
posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458.
"A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most
powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. ... He ... called
an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This
convention brought about far-reaching results. ... Rokycana
was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of
ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the
priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and
constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation
of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia.
{290}
But the Taborites stood aloof. ... At last a disputation was
agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were
condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns,
with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their
membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the
National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and
George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league.
Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the
sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by
the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him
master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all
Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally
acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose
consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found
that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of
cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting
with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in
1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in
consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time
Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown,
Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of
Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong
dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of
conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and
eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that
a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted
in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called
itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was
Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The
teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter
Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell
together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an
ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village
of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which
they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'--'Fratres
Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to
the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it
simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church
had been completed, they assumed the additional title of
'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of
the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant
appellation of the Church to the present day. .... It was
often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the
Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related
to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia,
Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian
Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect.
The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's
Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from
Moravia. ... The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place
in the year 1457."
E. De Schweinitz, History of the Church known as Unitas
Fratrum, chapter 10-12.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458.
Election of George Podiebrad to the throne.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.
Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George
Podiebrad.
A crusade.
War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary.
Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.
"George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the
Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to
fulfil his coronation oath, by expelling all heretics from
the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the
Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects
who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a
decree that all his subjects should become members of the
Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The
Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the
Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the
compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new
pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome,
requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the
pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused
his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to
Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the
administration of the communion under both kinds. In
consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which
the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present.
The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced,
he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of
the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the
dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the
kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The
council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men
in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and
pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are
in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy
church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood,
and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' ...
Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king
ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the
castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except
bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled
the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of
excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome
within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull
occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was
induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the
offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance
which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when
besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with
the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of
excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the
new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with
increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite
commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to
gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian
crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of
Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by
threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467,
the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the
heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors.
{291}
Although this proposal was rejected by the diet,
the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad,
and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade
throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian
territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of
Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude,
and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration
by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as
the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the
empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of
Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him
with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his
obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown,
was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of
German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia.
At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the
Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to
the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour
and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal
commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an
armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of
April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in
Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But
Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact
should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal
legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and
Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the
Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and
solemnly crowned by the legate. ... Podiebrad, in order to
baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned
a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor,
Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by
Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal
was warmly approved by the nation, ... as the Catholics were
desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and
the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or
Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The
states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus
was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The
indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment,
and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two
armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest
generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check;
till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of
their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on
the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On
the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again
presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still
fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous
party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority
declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed
king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias,
and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his
intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to
disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to
drive him from that of Hungary."
W. Coxe. History of the House of Austria,
chapter 18 (volume 1).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479.
War with Matthias of Hungary.
Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1490.
King Ladislaus elected to the throne of Hungary.
See Hungary: A. D. 1487-1526.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576.
Accession of the House of Austria.
The Reformation and its strength.
Alternating toleration and persecution.
In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after
the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was
succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor
son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz
against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality
of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman
Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and
was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by
Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526],
brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister
of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The
doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst
the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism
gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the
Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the
Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the
defence of the national and religious liberties, which were
menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the
battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid
prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction
in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others
imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was
confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several
privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were
carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish,
and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known
under the name of the Bloody Diet. ... The Jesuits were also
introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of
the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist
Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded
to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother
Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign,
his harsh and despotic character. ... He died in 1564,
sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which
he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was
succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of
noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the
belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the
Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all
parties. ... Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was
educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and
could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however,
become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria
proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means
were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."
V. Krasinski, Lectures on the Religious History of the
Slavonic Nations, lecture 2.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604.
Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
{292}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's
violation of it.
Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by
hereditary right.
The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window.
Beginning of the Thirty Years War.
In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown
of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died,
and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity
which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D.
1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time,
under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a
new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz
[Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better
acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of
Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant
religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as
an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked
upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of
their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on
this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter,
the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with
little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic
nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At
length several of the former were incautious enough to speak
somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to
awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future
sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into
actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves
to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals
furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising
leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia,
but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his
zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment
to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of
the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important
posts. ... Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved
tumult because his talents shone in it--rash and thoughtless
enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer
temper would not have ventured upon--unscrupulous enough,
where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to
sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic
enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the
Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in
the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of
Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was
chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to
him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the
Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation
had placed in his hands something far more important--itself
--with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The
aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently
deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to
leave him his full influence over the living. They took from
him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which
had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his
eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and
wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his
ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by
a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was
not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had
extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious
treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the
privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were
conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of
the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a
toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian
Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the
Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had
contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These
alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to
celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was
left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to
determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the
Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest
extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the
ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had
limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the
validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the
religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter
of Majesty. ... In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to
the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to
the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the
Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of
their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. ... By
the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled
down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent
of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among
the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud
outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter
of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and
particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed
himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the
people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague
from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary
measures against the common danger. It was resolved to
petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the
prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the
states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his
viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious,
justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the
result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages
that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail
to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial
edict made upon the assembled Estates. ... He held it ...
advisable first to direct their indignation against the
Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a
report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by
the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the
imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred,
were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron
Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn,
Burgrave of Calstein. ... Against two characters so unpopular
the public indignation was easily excited, and they were
marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation.
{293}
On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in
great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into
the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz,
Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone
they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken
any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation.
Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata
with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and
Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm
out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to
a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the
castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was
thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally
excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians
justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable
in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up
again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which
the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved
them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the
obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as
'the defenestration at Prague.'] ... By this brutal act of
self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance,
and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a
series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone,
nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty
directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection.
They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the
imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal
functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole
Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."
F. Schiller, History of the Thirty Years' War, book 1,
pages 51-55.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War, chapter 2.
A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapter 1.
F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 22.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620.
Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand.
His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in
Bohemia.
Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector.
His unsupported situation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620.
Disappointment in the newly elected King.
His aggressive Calvinism.
Battle of the White Mountain before Prague.
Frederick's flight.
Annulling of the Royal charter.
Loss of Bohemian Liberties.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1620,
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.
The Reign of Terror.
Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades.
The country a desert.
Protestantism crushed, but not slain.
"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia,
with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics.
For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were
banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated.
The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there
could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As
a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under
the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially,
were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and
schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number
of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their
property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that
no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade,
enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a
Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted
Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and
whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not
converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be
replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his
opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order
was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country
within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was
ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626,
must emigrate. ... But the real conversions were few;
thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands
wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000
Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the
aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be
found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any
of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not
or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against
them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were
sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till
they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus
throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. ... No
succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the
victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite
memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was
extorted. ... A respectable Protestant party exists to this
day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land
was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had
4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or
800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are
certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country
the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this
day."
L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, chapter 32.
ALSO IN:
C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in
Bohemia, volume 2.
E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the
Unitas Fratrum, chapter 47-51.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632.
Temporary occupation by the Saxons.
Their expulsion by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes.
Siege of the old city.
Peace.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
Prussian invasion.
Battle of Chotusitz.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
{294}
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Expulsion of the French.
Belleisle's retreat.
Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757.
The Seven Years War.
Frederick's invasion and defeat.
Battles of Prague and Kolin.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).
----------BOHEMIA: End----------
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.
BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).
See GYPSIES.
BOIANS, OR BOII.
Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the
powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched
upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts
given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the
subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After
the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in
the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled
them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to
cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in
modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are
thought to have derived their names from these Boian people.
Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the
Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He
settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory,
between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was
Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni.
The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern
Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which
probably derived its name from them. Three important names,
therefore, in European geography and history, viz.--Bourbon,
Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the
Boii.
Tacitus, Germany, translated by a Church and Brodribb,
notes.
ALSO IN:
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note.
BOIS-LE-DUC.
Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).
"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of
the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across
the river), and it might therefore be supposed that
Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right
shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case.
... From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the
districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying
partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been
looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical
researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the
Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part
of Khorassan. ... It is almost impossible in dealing
geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an
accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our
definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of
Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter
name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D.
1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country
stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert
of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which
have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original
undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical
times. ... Bokhara, the capital from the time of the
Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical
reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its
prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite
world. ... Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city,
distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the
principal emporium for the trade between China and Western
Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades,
and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of
gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great
money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population
of Eastern and Western Asia. ... Sogd ... comprised the
mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the
extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). ... The capital was
Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they
specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the
history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the
time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond
the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance
when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the
Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and
become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have
reached the culminating point of its prosperity."
A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, introduction.
ALSO IN: J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 2-3.
BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
BOKHARA: 6th Century.
Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
BOKHARA: A. D. 710.
The Moslem Conquest.
See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998.
Under the Samanides.
See SAMANIDES.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193.
The Seldjuk Turks.
See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220.
Under the Khuarezmians.
See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1219.
Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.
Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It
was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name,
according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from
Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of
Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days.
Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and
asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the
house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a
loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses
fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to
plunder. ... The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in
a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more
easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the
victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only
heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who
were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died
rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and
daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the
wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and
certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.
{295}
"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of
rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok
Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our
admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce
this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were
forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was
not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of
men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave
defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the
population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance.
More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were,
with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced
to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus
the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their
learning, their love of art, and their general refinement,
were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation
and scattered to all quarters."
A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, chapter 8.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
BOKHARA: A. D. 1868.
Subjection to Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------BOKHARA: End----------
BOLERIUM.
See BELERION.
BOLESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025.
Boleslaus II., King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083.
Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138.
Boleslaus IV., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173.
Boleslaus V., King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.
BOLEYN, Anne.
Marriage, trial and execution.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.
BOLGARI.
See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.
BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830;
and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
BOLIVIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us,
a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an
established rule for every man to build his house, with his
own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of
man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow
citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban
on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being
perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured
out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. ...
The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a
necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their
husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated,
and woman's infidelity severely punished. ... The Moxos
cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of
agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and
fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos
lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last
named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The
immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the
Mormons of our time. ... The Canichanas, who lived near
Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West
longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the
Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals.
...Where Jujuy--the most northern province· of the Argentine
Republic--joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the
Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me
by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to
agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the
houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by
a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male
descendants only."
T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 4.
See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.
In the Empire of the Incas.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559.
Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.
See AUDIENCIAS.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru.
The Bolivian Constitution.
"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically
known] ... had been detached [in 1776--see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC:
A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima ... to form part
of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The
fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary
one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable
place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have
been shed in this terrible struggle. ... The Spanish army
afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and
thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence
under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was
incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it
as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised
too great a preponderance in the South American system, and
the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these
pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the
government until a congress could be assembled: and under the
influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected
into an independent state by the name of the Republic of
Bolivar, or Bolivia."--
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, page 290.
For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation--the results
of which embraced Upper Peru--and the adoption of the Bolivian
constitution by the latter,
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839.
Confederation with Peru.
War with Chile.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884.
The war with Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
----------BOLIVIA: End----------
BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.
On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new
Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C.
189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the
Bologna of modern Italy.
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.
BOLOGNA:
Origin of the name.
See BOIANS.
{296}
BOLOGNA: B. C. 43.
Conference of the Triumvirs.
See ROME: B. C. 44-42.
BOLOGNA: 11th Century.
School of Law.
The Glossators.
"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous
school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers,
who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending
over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of
expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the
Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in
which they recorded and handed down the results of their
studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their
copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write
glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These
glosses came at length to be an immense literature."
J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.
BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries.
Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447.
Under the tyranny of the Visconti.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512.
Acquisition by Pope Julius II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797.
Joined to the Cispadane Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831.
Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------BOLOGNA: End----------
BOMBAY.
Cession to England (1661).
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS.--Sea-fight.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER).
BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER--DECEMBER).
BONAPARTE, Joseph,
King of Naples, King of Spain.
See
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.
BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.
See NAPOLEON III.
BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON,
The career of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.
BONAPARTE FAMILY,
The origin of the.
"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence
overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then
bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very
strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled
in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years
1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with
the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the
proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing
stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to
Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep
hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted;
and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as
Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure
that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as
usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning,
attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All
this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in
the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers
had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of
feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of
the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special
interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the
clearing process, when we discover who those noble old
freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were
called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical,
derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del
Monte,'--the Good Men of the Mountain;--and by abbreviation,
Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the
pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of
their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became
Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the
next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed,
as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the
one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling
themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards
again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San
Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of
an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other
first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the
coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from
thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and
has since been heard of."
T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
volume 1, pages 50-51.
BONIFACE, ST.,
The Mission of.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
BONIFACE III., Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER.
Boniface IV., Pope, A. D. 608-615.
Boniface V., Pope, A. D. 619-625.
Boniface VI., Pope, A. D. 896.
Boniface VII., Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985.
Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303.
Boniface IX., Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.
BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
BONNET ROUGE, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
BONONIA IN GAUL.
See GESORIACUM.
BONONIA IN ITALY.
See BOLOGNA.
BOOK OF THE DEAD.
"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms
composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim
soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and
it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the
perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or
portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the
many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this
day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if
not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book
of the Dead."
A. B. Edwards, Academy, Sept. 10, 1887.
{297}
M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous
differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of
which he had been engaged for ten years.
BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.
BOONVILLE, Battle of.
See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
BOOTH, John Wilkes.
Assassination of President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
BOR-RUSSIA.
See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.
BORDARII.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.
BORDEAUX: Origin.
See BURDIGALA.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 732.
Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650.
Revolt of the Frondeurs.
Siege of the city.
Treaty of Peace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
The last phase of the Fronde.
Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée.
Cromwell's help invoked.
Siege and submission of the city.
"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city
tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither
attached to the government nor afraid of it. ... There, as at
Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for
disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical
changes in the government. ... During the popular emotion
against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had
been held under some great elms near the city, and from this
circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now
assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the
slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged,
were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was
itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde
and the Great Fronde--the latter of which was devoted to the
Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally
of a small number of active and violent men, and in its
organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins.
... Troubles increased between this society and the
parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended
by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of
the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. ... The
offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few
days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles
were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée
was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests
resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had
the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and
left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de
Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the
affairs of the city. ... Condé decided that he would recognize
the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by
his approval. ... The restoration of the King's authority at
Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at
Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the
party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the
overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly
unsuccessful. ... The desire of the people, the nobility, and
the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could
the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to
Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this
important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action,
partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and
money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost
to the insurgents. ... Condé seems to have left Guienne to
itself. ... In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned
to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them.
... The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps
to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged
the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were
sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with
steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the
siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged,
soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the
submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to
erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made
powerful enough to check any future turbulence."
J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, chapter 15 (volume 2).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791.
The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.
See France: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris.
Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND
1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814.
Occupied by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
----------BORDEAUX: End----------
BORDER-RUFFIANS.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
BORGHETTO, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A.D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
BORGIAS, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.
BORLA, The.
See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.
BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
BOROUGH.--CITY.--TOWN.--VILLE.
"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly
organized form of the township. It was probably in a more
defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the
quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name;
and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the
cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of
the mighty man--the king, the magistrate, or the noble."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5.
{298}
"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference,
except a difference in rank, there is in England between a
city and a borough. ... A city does not seem to have any
rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by
every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which
have any special powers above others are those which are
counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of
themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The
city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the
United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This
makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word
city in common talk which seems a little strange in British
ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word
city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or
rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is
mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being
perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very
well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a
'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly
is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect
degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It
is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no
Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various
spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word
for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that
this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely
displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an
enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still
applied to a single house and its surroundings. ... In common
talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word
city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct
reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the
town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town
which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition,
though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought
nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then,
are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes
most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for
using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is
English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by
some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no
means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal
use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of
towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as
burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the
'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its
territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any
other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of
the tribe. ... When Christianity was established, the
'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's
diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the
immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in
Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but
we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees
because they were already cities. But in modern French use no
distinction is made between these ancient capitals which
became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and
spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the
ancient province, the head of the modern department, the
smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities,
are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way
distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common
enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often
distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,'
from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is
both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and
small. It is used just like ville in French."
E. A. Freeman, City and Borough Macmillan's Mag.,
May, 1889.
BOROUGH-ENGLISH.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.
Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England
during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's
favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the
leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried
and beheaded.
BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.
BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
BORYSTHENES, The.
The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now
known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near
the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,--a
very early trading settlement of the Milesians.
BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.
BOSNIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.
The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived
it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly,
swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the
name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople
lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as
the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.
BOSPHORUS:
The city and kingdom.
"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote
the same city, though the former name often comprehends the
whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the
European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we
first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from
Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion
including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities
on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been
governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy--called the
Archæanaktidæ--for forty-two years (480--438 B. C.) After them
we have a series of princes standing out individually by name,
and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.].
... During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some
intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion
not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little
interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony--but of
private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good
offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between
Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production
of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had
in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides
and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand
among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens,
where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and
other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in
Bosporus and the other Pontic ports.
{299}
This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in
ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean
maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the
protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their
maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens
went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus),
to push their fortunes. ... We have no means of following [the
fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know
that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince,
Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the
Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis)
to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or
master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from
whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began--subject,
however, after no long interval, to the dominion and
interference of Rome."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 98.
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.
Acquisition by the Goths.
See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.
BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.
Capture by the Turks.
"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of
Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then
occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The
city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence
in the northern regions of the Black Sea."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 8.
See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.
----------BOSPHORUS: End----------
BOSSISM.
The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM]
developed enormously the influence and power of certain
leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great
cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of
"Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented
was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the
New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems
to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss
Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed
from him to others of like kind.
BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630.
The first white inhabitant.
The founding and naming of the city.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.
BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651.
The Puritan Theocracy.
Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the
Presbyterians.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.
BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.
"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground
that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought
to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the
church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political
rights, even though unqualified for participation in the
Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what
was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused
intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In
1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the
principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was
far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen
in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the
great question. The decision of the synod substantially
confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some
dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished
to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was
Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and
Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he
afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two
tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all
toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally
enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was
the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston.
Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663,
and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed
him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to
declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the
synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New
Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy
years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his
colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to
Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston
congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which
he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at
Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had
already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church
had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway
Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the
title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house
was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late
governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the
town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known
as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer
Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of
1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As
this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in
favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing
church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased
so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in
1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the
same spot,--a building with a grander history than any other
on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick
building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence
was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."
J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300
years, lecture 9.
B. B. Wisner, History of the Old South Church, sermon 1.
W. Emerson, Historical Sketch of the First Church in
Boston, section 4-7.
BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
BOSTON: A. D. 1689.
The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
{300}
BOSTON: A. D. 1697.
Threatened attack by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.
BOSTON: A. D. 1704.
The first newspaper.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.
BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742.
The origin of Faneuil Hall.
See FANEUIL HALL.
BOSTON: A. D. 1761.
The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's
speech.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.
BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767.
The doings under the Liberty Tree.
See LIBERTY TREE.
BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
The seizure of the sloop "Liberty."
Riotous patriotism.
"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been
resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were
frequently rescued from their possession by interested
parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs
to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no
flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's
sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira
wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly
locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was
removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the
whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have
been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she
was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the
harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by
the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and
they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the
'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings
undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to
Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the
time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the
rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if
not in their measures."
M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and
Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1).
BOSTON: A. D. 1768.
The quartering of British troops.
"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston,
two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news
of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered
from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New
York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town
meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to
summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to
do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates
from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in
ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war
with France'--such was the pretence--they advised all persons
not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once;
they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be
observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from
more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed
[Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their
chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court.
The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but
denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge,
the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All
pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed.
In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King
was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which
the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge
of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular
conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole
political authority of the colonies. The day after the
adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in
the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts
from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the
two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called
upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the
Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full
there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard
insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two
regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be
considered as already full. The council replied, that, even
allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the
provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local
magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to
the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied
by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to
advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the
reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The
governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The
troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to
the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand
an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were
encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to
use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a
part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary
use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of
it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the
council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It
was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the
meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in
front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the
inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were
greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the
marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge
the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention
to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As
the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen
declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then
constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required
them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a
doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to
quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose,
and to procure out of his own military chest the firing,
bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act,
the council having declined to order any expenditure for those
purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money
belonged exclusively to the General Court."
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 29 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6.
T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay,
1749-1774, pages 202-217.
{301}
BOSTON: A. D. 1769.
The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
Soldiers and citizens in collision.
The "Massacre."
Removal of the troops.
"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th
regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th
was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was
quartered just south of King Street; about midway between
them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was
the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had
been a subject of great annoyance to the people. ... One is
forced to admit ... that a good degree of discipline was
maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers,
although provocations were constant, the rude element in the
town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were
never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists
were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into
fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired
at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the
workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues
the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About
the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred
near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th,
between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that
regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The
soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated.
Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out
arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was
not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of
March the symptoms were very ominous. ... At length an
altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless
boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the
sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the
other. ... The soldier retreated up the steps of the
custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was
at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by
Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon
followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the
ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A
young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was
plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in
number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly
outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but
the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms
except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse
insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck
them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of
ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be
known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that
followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most
contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general,
at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his
influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston
declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was
full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may
have been easily understood as commands, and at last the
discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the
forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were
killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom,
Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers,
leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in
the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying
into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. ... A
wild confusion ... took possession of the town. The
alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of
the regiments thundered to arms. ... What averted a fearful
battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of
Hutchinson"--the lieutenant-governor, who made his way
promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to
their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the
nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an
investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a
great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the
surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil
Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the
neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the
troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee
which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson
disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding
officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending
away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the
committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through
the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both
regiments or none."--"Both regiments or none." So he put into
the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as
with one voice when the report of the committee was made to
them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even
the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of
both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the
affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power
of the government by the little town, and when Lord North
received details of these events he always referred to the
14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"
J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter
6.
R. Frothingham, The Sam Adams Regiments (Atlantic
Monthly, volume 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63).
J. Q. Adams, Life of John Adams, chapter 3 (volume l).
T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Mass. Bay,
1749-1774, pages 270-280.
H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution
(Centennial edition), pages 15-79.
F. Kedder, History of the Boston Massacre.
BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
The fair trial of the soldiers.
"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had ... a sequel
which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was
determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public
feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if
their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for
seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided.
Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who
was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers
and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence.
Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so
unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty,
and, though violently opposed to the British government, he
was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man.
{302}
In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also
of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he
discharged it with consummate ability. ... There was abundant
evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and
some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a
smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have
decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed
innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and
honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who
were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very
slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had
accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he
was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in
the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears
to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no
people have indulged more largely than the Americans in
violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have
at every period of their history been more signally free from
the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political
excitement has been often shown both in England and France."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 12 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
J. Adams, Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230).
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,
1713-1783, volume 5, page 269.
BOSTON: A. D 1773.
The Tea Party.
"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that
the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the
accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the
Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its
exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was
intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a
duty both in England and in America. That in England was six
pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden
and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston,
and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. ... On
the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first
tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston].
The following morning the citizens were informed by placard
that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually
arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the
morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united
and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most
destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty
was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called
together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing
determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was
unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old
South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again
adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship
protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch
of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of
the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the
following morning. The throng at that time was as great as
usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message
was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering
them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow
the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat
discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person
importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his
country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives
and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and
its return effected. It was necessary that some positive
action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days
from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate
ships and cargoes. ... The twenty days would expire on the
16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held
at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a
clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He
applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the
following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th,
the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before
the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war
in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and
7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with
a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The
importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a
clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass
to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated
to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make
the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New
England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit,
but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply
that no pass could be given him. ... It was six o'clock before
the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to
relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the
governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This
meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an
instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop
in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as
Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards
Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay.
The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed
their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The
'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes;
there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of
precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three
hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests
were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians
marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the
vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of
the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next
day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to
prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places.
Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,'
was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was
received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by
ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. ... The
continent was universally stirred at last."
A. Gilman, The Story of Boston, chapter 23.
ALSO IN:
E. G. Porter, The Beginning of the Revolution (Memorial
History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1).
B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Revolution, volume 1, chapter
21.
T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of
303
Mass. Bay, 1749-1774, pages 429-440.
Same, Diary and Letters, page 138.
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last
revision), volume 3, chapter 34.
J. Kimball, The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of
Tea (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll., volume 12, number 3).
BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
Commerce interdicted.
Town Meetings forbidden.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).
BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects.
Military occupation of the city by General Gage.
"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on
Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain
General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger
in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's
defeat. ... He had married in one of the most respectable
families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of
the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he
entered upon his public duties with a large measure of
popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about
him. ... General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long
Wharf and was received with much parade. ... On the first day
of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition
from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in
carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the
governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most
presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people
to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but
Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General
Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer.
The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. ...
Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On
the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the
15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped
on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th
and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August
6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the
Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation
amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. ... It bore
severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had
been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers
were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of
bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered
and sustained by the large contributions sent from every
quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that
accompanied them. ... The excitement of the public mind was
intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were
characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed
a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods.
The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider.
Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the
suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused.
... It was while the public mind was in this state of
excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was
instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which
virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade
town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused
persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should
Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies
see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of
Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution.
It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an
organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the
governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the
Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in
legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies,
and extending throughout the colonies. ... The crisis called
for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular
from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the
duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers,
were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of
resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the
first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such
councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to
resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General
Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon
and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder
belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his
orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces
were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair,
spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people
collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of
attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential
patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in
another direction. ... Meantime the fact of the removal of the
powder became magnified into a report that the British had
cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on
the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads
were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed
danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor
to the extent of the popular movement. ... General Gage saw no
hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the
patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military
preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested
in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk
resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a
convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] ... and
these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold
and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental
Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either
compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed
every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor
or constable. They also made every effort to transport
ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and
muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were
taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard
is, ... silently, at night. ... General Gage immediately began
to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the
excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a
movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited
on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested
him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that
his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his
majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up
the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do
anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the
works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and
eight nine pounders."
R. Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 11,
and appendix 1 (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves).
W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, volume 2, pages 164-232.
W. Tudor, Life of James Otis, chapter 27-29.
{304}
BOSTON: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of war.
Lexington.
Concord.
The British troops beleaguered in the city.
Battle of Bunker Hill.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776.
The siege directed by Washington.
Evacuation of the city by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
----------BOSTON: End----------
BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.
BOTANY BAY.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D, 1601-1800.
BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).
BOTOCUDOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.
BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
BOUIDES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;
Also, SAMANIDES.
BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
BOULE, The.
The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 20.
See, also, AREOPAGUS.
BOULOGNE: Origin.
See GESORIACUM.
BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801.
Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England.
Nelson's attack.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
BOULON, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BOURBON, The Constable:
His treason and his attack on Rome.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;
And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.
BOURBON:
Origin of the name.
See BOIANS;
also ROME: B. C. 390-347.
BOURBON, The House of:
Its origin.
From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last
male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the
House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of
Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in
favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name
which they have retained, that of France being reserved for
the Royal branch. ... The House which had the honour of
supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But
our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their
own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and
'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France'
formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne
by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the
accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those
younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung
from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry
IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their
successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in
conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s
second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title
borne by their grandfather. ... Possessors of vast territories
which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to
the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the
affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew
around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the
'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs
de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered
the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the
profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of
them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of
France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of
the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large
estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of
Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the
rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of
the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D.
1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his
House. ... The property of the Connétable was definitely
alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not
receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to
which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March,
1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous
descendants. ... Five only of his sons obtained their
majority. ... Two of these princes founded families: Antoine
[Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his
marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563],
father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons
now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was
the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."
Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes of the House of
Condé, book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.
BOURBON: The Spanish House.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.
BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT,
The First.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
The Second.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The Third.
See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).
BOURGEOIS.--BOURG.
In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of
houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But ...
the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an
assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word
Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the
inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises
were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense
corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess;
that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal
corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive
sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of
collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best
rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the
privilege of franchise of being a burgess."
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.
{305}
BOURGES,
Origin of.
The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city
of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum.
"As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became
exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence
the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12.
See, also, ÆDUI,
and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).
The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not
far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one
of the important battles of European history. On one side were
the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting
ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the
other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of
Germans, under Otho, the Guelf--one of two rival claimants of
the imperial crown--and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by
their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English
king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers
of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his
ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of
the English crown. A terrible pope--Innocent III.--had
approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the
miserable English king, had given provocations to the church
which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head.
Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,--the
latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French
king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a
strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate
and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last
moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly
surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back
as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his
French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under
these circumstances, determined to use the army he had
assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the
count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was
overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to
the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or
emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to
antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the
decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the
independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter
consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real
French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else
could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of
glory, dear above all things to the French heart. ... The
battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the
lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king;
the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence
of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of
Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the
field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains,
and there spent the remaining years of his life in private.
King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the
year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation
before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the
following year at Runnymede."
G. W. Kitchin, History of France,
book 3, chapter 7, section 4.
"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus
alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was
the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants,
of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of
Champagne, and of Burgundy. ... The victory of Bouvines marked
the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and
indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The
nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose
out of and above the feudal system."
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 18.
See, also,
ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250,
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.
BOVATE, OR OXGANG.
"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year.
Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but
the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated
in different records from 8 to 24."
N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.
BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
BOWIDES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;
also, SAMANIDES;
also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.
BOYACA, Battle of (1819).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
BOYARS.
"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of
independent principalities, each reigning prince was
surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars,
or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or
soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the
time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the
Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent
executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in
his military expeditions. ... Under the Tartar domination this
political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been
conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and
arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political
significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."
D. M. Wallace, Russia, chapter 17.
BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
BOYS IN BLUE.--BOYS IN GRAY.
Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.
"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the
United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their
opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863,
'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The
nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of
their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of
butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have
originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by
the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on
England to get them out of their scrape. ... The Union man ...
said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow.
... The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the
Confederate soldiers were almost universally called
'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the
Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to
the part of the country they came from. ... Other nicknames
for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue
Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have
been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"
J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for
the Union, page 137.
{306}
BOZRA.
See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.
BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.
See ANTWERP.
BRABANT: 4th century.
First settlement of the Franks.
See TOXANDRIA.
BRABANT: 9th century.
Known as Basse Lorraine.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099.
Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom
of Jerusalem.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries.
The county and duchy.
From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards
the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes,
until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under
the influences which at that time were drawing all the
Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the
Burgundian dukes.
BRABANT: A. D. 1430.
Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
----------BRABANT: End----------
BRACCATI, The.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.
See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.
BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.
See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.
BRADFORD'S PRESS.
See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729,
and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640.
Accession to the throne of Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
BRAGG, General Braxton.
Invasion of Kentucky.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER:
TENNESSEE--KENTUCKY).
The Battle of Stone River.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
(DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
The Tullahoma Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY:
TENNESSEE).
Chickamauga.
The Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,
and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BRAHMANISM.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.
BRAHMANS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
BRANCHIDÆ, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.
Beginnings of the Margravate.
"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs,
took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention
in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or
'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of
Brenns,--Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or
Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,--who as little know.
Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and
palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of
the Wends,'--who must have been a good deal surprised at sight
of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago.
... That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in
the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge
of Brannibor,--he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he
of Salzwedel westward:--that Brannibor, in time, will itself
be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of
Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries
Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. ... In
old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of
Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves
of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether
uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the
Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of
centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern
Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom
therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first
two hundred years in their natural gray state,--perhaps
sufficiently conceivable by the reader. ... The
Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the
Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year
1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy
still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their
function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt';
the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of
Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. ... This
Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the
pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient
Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable)
on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from
Aschersleben,--the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to
speak, a second edition of Ascanien. ... The kindred, called
Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and
Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History,
especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had
intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before
this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very
plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway
shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and
much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly
conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about
two-hundred years."
T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 3-4.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.
The Electorate.
"He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of
the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;--first wholly
definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very
shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough
again, ... got the Northern part of what is still called
Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg
Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and
great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of
Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally
acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering
what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already
got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events
for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies
it has had.
{307}
A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows
ever more so in our late times. ... He transferred the
Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his
wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or
Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is
called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck,
Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New
Marck.' ... Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an
Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now
furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially
'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the
Seven who have a right (which became about this time an
exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the
Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,'
Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the
Kaiser's own."
T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 4.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.
Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to
the first of the Hohenzollern.
Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In
1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was
substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to
describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one
of the several districts into which it was divided. The city
and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the
imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince,
Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. ...
Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family
inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming
involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the
Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of
release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the
prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His
brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the
beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the
Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his
death. ... Very important acquisitions were made during the
reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of
Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the
native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed
eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and
the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in
possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho
III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an
extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving
villages--all this in spite of the division of power and
authority. ... Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later;
and a new partition of the estate was made between their
several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the
title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last
margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His
cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but
a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or
parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant
devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to
her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the
Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The
transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the
Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the
yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed
the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz
sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly
sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its
local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere
worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither
the duties of his station nor the interests of his house.
Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a
vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. ... It was not therefore
contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age,
when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession
by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. ... During the
minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered
by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But
troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with
the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on
the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not
continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg
was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched
the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended
themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the
tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the
citizens had for the time saved the Mark. ... The Margrave
finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his
unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho.
In the meantime his father had died. The Electors--or five of
them--had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles
of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his
successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in
history as Charles IV. ... Although he failed in the attempt
to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had
naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and
ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of
Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. ... From
Louis he procured ... a treaty of succession, by which he
should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that
Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues
were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died
suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge,
vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and
spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an
end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of
the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In
1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the
price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all
its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378.
His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the
plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a
richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son,
Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned
the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into
great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in
scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen
emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count
Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post
was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of
Brandenburg, ... issued successfully from the contest. His
good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence
and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see
HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit
of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other
vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make
his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years
later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the
sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.
H. Tuttle, History of Prussia to the Accession of
Frederick the Great, chapter 1 and 3.
{308}
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355.
Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family.
Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.
On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg,
Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the
Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province.
"Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in
reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy
for Sigismund he had begun the task. ... During the reign of
his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick
Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and
Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The
Electorate, which during the preceding century had been
curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to
enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the
days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455]
bought back from them in their need. ... Albert Achilles, the
brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful
and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the
principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been
separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of
Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of
cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of
territory. ... It was already understood that the Electorate
was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but
Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for
younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484,
his territories were again divided, and remained so for more
than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was
to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The
earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising
everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486]
by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by
Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the
Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector
of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of
Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch
was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave
of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524
to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it
the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor,
which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had
been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and
was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom
of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D.
1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps
the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his
family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and
preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor,
Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new
religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of
Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the
ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the
death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was
able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the
success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it,
and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the
time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim
Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. ...
Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th
century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th.
The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth,
Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim
Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to
younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate,
their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave,
George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own
territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick,
second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his
death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and
claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim
placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a
deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568
from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to
the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. ... Duke Albert
died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united
under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy
had been secured before the storm which was already gathering
over the Empire had burst. ... During the long struggle of the
Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a
sufferer rather than an actor. ... George William, who died in
1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was
Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."
C. F. Johnstone, Historical Abstracts, chapter 5.
ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great.
book 3 (volume 1).
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609.
The Jülich-Cleve contest.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627.
Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.
See GERMANY: 1627-1629.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631.
Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of
Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632.
Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
Alliance with the Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
{309}
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
The Great Elector.
His development of the strength of the Electorate.
His successful wars.
His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia.
Fehrbellin.
"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was
only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found
everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses
garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the
mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the
fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the
Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an
alliance with Holland; his third--not in order of action, for
in that respect it took first place--to raise the nucleus of
an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his
fortresses. ... To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he
temporised until his armed force had attained the number of
8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his
position, and with so much effect that in the discussions
preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a
considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part
of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of
Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and
Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. ... The Peace once signed,
Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders
and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in
his dominions. ... He specially cherished his army. We have
seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in
1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of
Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well
disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the
times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654,
Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus
Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden
was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. ... The
right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however,
contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. ... War ensued. In
that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant,
and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own
dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two
rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near
not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To
protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he
marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a
force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was
prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at
Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer
to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results
followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been
signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an
Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and
recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop
there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great
Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him
in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable,
Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he
should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen
and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then
joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought
with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three
days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then,
thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers--in the
complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic
William withdrew his troops. ... Again did John Casimir
recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did
he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a
threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of
Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the
prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he
could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him.
He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to
return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There
the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th
November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty,
by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the
latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and
agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as
sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed,
the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every
side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John
Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than
doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether--the new enemies who
had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself--he
had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles
than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself
affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the
intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a
treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute
sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue,
with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the
family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic
William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war
against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this
convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon
Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the
Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field,
pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and
Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace
of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still
further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his
country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers
suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove
thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had
evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle
which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at
Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles
Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat
for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January
1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued,
and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the
monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to
the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy
of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of
Brandenburg and Prussia--a union upon which a great man was
able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German
Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was
chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions
and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia.
{310}
In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with
the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic
William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial
forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to
invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in
January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they
entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their
devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The
Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he
heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his
army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by
forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked
while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of
June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict,
"the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the
centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin.
The victors, utterly exhausted--they had scarcely quitted
their saddles for eleven days--were too worn out to pursue. It
was not till the following morning that, refreshed and
recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of
Mecklenburg. ... The Great Elector promptly followed up his
victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all
Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the
border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and
although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was
forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the
less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was
the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had
so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the
Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the
Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to
justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years
later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the
title of King."
G. B. Malleson, The Battle Fields of Germany, chapter 8.
See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Loss of part of Pomerania.
Compensating acquisitions.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679.
In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697.
The Treaty of Ryswick.
Restitutions by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700.
The Elector made King of Prussia.
See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
----------BRANDENBURG: End----------
BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of,
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777
(JANUARY-DECEMBER).
BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
and (JULY).
BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
BRAZIL:
Origin of the name.
"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus
Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood,
'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'--called in the Portuguese language
'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,'
'coals of fire,'--the land whence it came was termed the 'land
of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was
shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera
Cruz, or Santa Cruz."
J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
Brazilians, chapter 3.
See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
BRAZIL:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS;
also GUCK or Coco GROUP.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504.
Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
Portuguese colonization and agriculture.
Introduction of Slavery.
The coming of the Jesuits.
Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.
"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by
accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities
of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled,
though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered,
and the colonists betook themselves from the first to
agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast
were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the
Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending
out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of
Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New
England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among
themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but
this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III.,
extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in
Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was
parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into
captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the
interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with
absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed
over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native
Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians,
nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began
to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human
flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of
Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The
settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European
colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and
brought their households with them to the new country. Thus
they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the
chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of
their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended
to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came
to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East;
and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might
raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a
plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the
culture of the sugar cane.
{311}
The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in
the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded
order of the Jesuits. ... John III. in [1549] sent out six of
the order with the first governor of Brazil. ... The Dutch,
made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to
win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of
the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who
subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated
in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully
assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital
was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one
half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as
in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of
the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design
was a main cause of its failure. ... But ... the profits of
the company ... rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The
visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and
they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. ... The man
whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince
John Maurice of Nassau. ... In a short time he had greatly
extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was
subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the
States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts
of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends;
they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built
more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile
community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one
in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention
of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of
Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643,
they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated
the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of
Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was
therefore supposed to be out of the question. ... But the
recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in
Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke
out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645.
The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic
Dutch. ... John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of
Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and
although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received
no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after
another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants
quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but
in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for
8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them.
But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came
more and more into the hands of the English."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 2-3.
ALSO IN:
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume
1, chapter 9 and 15; volume 2, chapter 1-4.
R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1-2.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1524.
Conceded to Portugal.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
The Republic of St. Paul.
The Paulistas or Mamelukes.
"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually
denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very
inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho,
having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was
received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga,
after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa
some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy
of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the
sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his
having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of
this establishment were such, that permission was soon after
given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers
intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased
rapidly. ... A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of
civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits
soon after established themselves with a number of Indians
they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in
softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the
seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast
to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more
than nominal. ... The mixture produced an improved race, 'the
European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed
itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is
much more likely that the free and popular government which
they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other
country. ... They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on
account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The
Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now
many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of
whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard
with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the
enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account,
on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade
with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian
slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from
the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some
resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in
Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its
throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they
were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the
new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the
following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it
was during this period they displayed that active and
enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated.
... While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they
attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging
that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. ...
They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. ... As they had
fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold
of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of
their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were
sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the
king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his
excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their
college, and put their principal to death, expelled the
remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no
longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence
of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war,
the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The
Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part
of the Brazils in armed troops. ... The foundation was laid of
enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day,
although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in
the year 1756. ... When the house of Braganza, in 1640,
ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging
him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves.
They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of
Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they
were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not
until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese
government."
H. M. Brackenridge, Voyage to South America,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil,
chapter 23 (volume 2).
{312}
BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541.
Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.
See AMAZONS RIVER.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560.
Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777.
The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary
disputes with Spain.
"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the
Dutch] ... was used by the Portuguese government only to get
up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was
intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In
consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a
century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians
generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother
country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by
Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was
Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was
looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to
prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they
feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened
to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers
might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding
the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer,
La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly
after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short
union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed
vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494
[see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. ... By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso,
in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the
old arrangements were--at least, for their American
colonies--the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the
'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect
knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved
to be vain. ... The unsolved question descended as an evil
heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South
American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the
terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh
conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."
F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 23-24.
ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 3.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1713.
The Portuguese title confirmed.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1759.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.
Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty.
The founding of the independent Empire.
"While anarchy and ruin ... overspread the greater part of the
beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an
independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with
credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by
the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The
country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly
imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when
Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL:
A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at
once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom.
The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the
printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the
enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign
settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were
sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic
agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life
was breathed into every department of the state. After a few
years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI.
to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the
integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their
sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from
Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National
Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had
resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute
dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more
impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil
was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little
kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies
of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the
monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived,
and that England should be deprived of her free trade to
Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent
of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for
Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed
the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty
treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in
revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld
their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to
the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he
retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid
economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure
from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal
provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became
mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained
in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his
recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his
noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence,
his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual
feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza,
which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were
reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the
quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the
arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king
arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a
constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere
colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more
humiliating to the Brazilians.
{313}
The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew
more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling
to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal,
and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At
length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent,
which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which
evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger:
he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window,
where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he
turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou
morte':--the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers,
and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The
Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of
Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to
admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that
might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of
Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in
December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of
Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a
modern colony achieving its independence, and separating
itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."
Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
J. Armitage, History of Brazil, chapter 1-7.
See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.
Wars with the Argentines.
Abdication of Dom Pedro I,
The Guerra dos Cabanos.
"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was
acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner
commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new
Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in
1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other
Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the
Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up
Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed
and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this
war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the
Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor,
who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable
families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to
the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most
unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his
daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had
abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don
Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom
Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne
only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted
and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro.
The next period was the most disturbed one that the young
Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war
in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande
do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos
Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each
other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred
up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese,
without considering that they should not be able to quench the
fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury
of the whole colored population turned against all whites,
Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction.
More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this
Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible
times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians,
half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe
in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the
personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than
emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against
Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over
Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared
with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the
stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was
occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with
which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on
the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."
F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 25-26.
ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, 1808-1831.
See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870.
The war with Paraguay,
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.
Emancipation of Slaves.
The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio
Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it
through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from
that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of
slave women shall be considered of free condition.' ... Such
children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve
the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the
name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe
penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter
inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed
to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their
freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of
government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a
certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to
aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number
of slaves. ... The passage of this law did not prove merely
prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums
placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in
the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed
to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from
motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many
persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves
without compensation. ... I am happy to say that the number
liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private
individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer
first went to Brazil [1852] ... it was estimated that there
were 3,000,000 in slavery. ... There were at the beginning of
1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more
than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."
J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
Brazilians, chapter 28.
"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the
province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only
15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on
the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November
greatly accelerated this progress, because it made
slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less
than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the
impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery
expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the
Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the
extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund
appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and
by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from
its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to
exist in Brazil."
H. C. Dent, A Year in Brazil, pages 281-296.
{314}
"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of
slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of
$485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent,
gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the
first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the
day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing
all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to
consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."
Statesman's Year-Book, 1890, page 391.
BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
Revolution.
Overthrow of the Empire.
Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
Religious freedom declared
"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November
[1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his
banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the
Government had been credited by the Republican journals with
the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the
provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance
of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the
Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event
of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom
Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant
province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department
resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a
general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a
revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin
Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional
ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement
seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto
Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the
leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so
very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in
the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the
Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a
self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da
Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and
organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da
Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for
Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a
federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire
constituting the States and each State arranging its own
constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local
governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor
received intimation that he and his family must leave the
country within twenty-four hours:--'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on
the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and
informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the
members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he
was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day;
but after listening to the officer's explanation that a
conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally
yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head
was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of
night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed,
the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went
down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey
them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the
gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha
Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had
been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. ... It was
said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the
instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to
abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his
daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her
husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and
from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the
people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces
of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled
the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to
take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of
the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December
18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in
it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was
not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."
Annual Register, 1889, part 1, pages 444-448.
"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only
conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation
would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation.
There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in
their action. ... A coalition of the army officers and the
constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would
have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20
provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would
readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. ... The
Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of
the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time.
... He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits,
who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be
said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when
the record of his public services and of his private virtues
is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of
centralization that practically deprived the great series of
federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the
privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a
constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received
from his father was not modified in any essential respect
during his long reign."
New York Tribune Extra, volume 1, number 12 (1889).
"A new Constitution ... was ratified by the first National
Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the
Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic,
under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old
provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be
administered under a republican form of government, with power
to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the
Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or
the preservation of internal order or for the execution of
Federal laws.
{315}
Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal
communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The
right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21
years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of
the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under
monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The
executive authority is vested in the President ... elected by
the people directly for the term of six years, and .... not
eligible for the succeeding term. ... Senators are elected by
the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each
State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three
years. ... The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all
laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three
years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every
70,000 inhabitants. ... It is declared that no sect or church
shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In
1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at
first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and
vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the
President that were voted down by Congress. In November the
President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the
Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the
invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new
Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution.
The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against
this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots
had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval
squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned.
"Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the
revolutionary committee as President in his stead ... and the
country soon settled down under the new government."--
Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891, pages 91-96.
"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the
factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão
Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a
familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy
collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent
upon military force, was a good augury for the future of
Brazil. ... In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional
Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of
disestablishing the Church. ... Fortunately for Brazil there
was no compromise of the disestablishment question. ... Under
the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to
hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the
federal or State governments. ... Every church was made free
in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential.
... Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress
and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."
I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 4.
See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.
----------BRAZIL: End----------
BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
BRECKINRIDGE, John C.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
BREDA: A. D. 1575.
Spanish-Dutch Congress.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
BREDA: A. D. 1590.
Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
BREDA: A. D. 1637.
Taken by the Prince of Orange.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
BREDA: A. D. 1793.
Taken and lost by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
----------BREDA: End----------
BREDA, Declaration from.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
BREDA, Treaty of (1666).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).
BREHON LAWS.
"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted
most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was
withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary
caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous
principles which they applied to the decision of the cases
which came before them. The earlier English writers found no
terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of
these native judges, and their contempt for the principles
upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers
attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced
principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. ...
The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books,
and the translation [publication?] of the most important of
them by the order of the government, have disposed of the
arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted,
that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence
present no characteristics of any special character, although
in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not
found elsewhere; ... the laws which existed among the native
Irish were in substance those which are found to have
prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of
social progress; as the social development of the nation was
prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same
stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all
other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for
centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had
acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of
scholastic philosophy and civil law. ... The learning of the
Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute
ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not
always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and
without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator;
and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and
precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute
should be decided."
A. G. Richey, Short History of the Irish People, chapter 3.
ALSO IN: Sir H. Maine, Early History of Institutions,
lecture 2.
BREISACH: A. D. 1638.
Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
BREISACH: A. D. 1648.
Cession to France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BREITENFELD,
Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
The second battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
{316}
BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries.
In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BREMEN: A. D. 1525
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
BREMEN: A. D. 1648.
Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
BREMEN: A. D. 1720.
The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
BREMEN: A. D. 1810.
Annexed to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
BREMEN: A. D. 1815.
Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic
Confederation.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
BREMEN: A. D. 1888.
Surrender of free privileges.
Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
----------BREMEN: End----------
BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638.
Taken by the French.
Recovered by the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
BRENHIN, The Cymric title.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
BRENNI, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
BRENTFORD, Battle of.
Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut,
or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.
BRESCIA: A. D. 1512.
Capture and pillage by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
BRESCIA: A. D. 1849.
Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian
Haynau.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------BRESCIA: End----------
BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760.
In the wars of Frederick the Great.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY);
1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.
BREST: A. D. 1694.
Repulse of the English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
BRETAGNE.
See BRITTANY.
BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.
"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see
BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects
and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by
their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or
been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz.,
the propensity to religious association, ... and, likewise,
the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable
the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by
cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the
Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. ... Here,
then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. ... The
first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard
Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of
glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular
orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. ...
His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers
kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting
the records of Christian antiquity. ... Hence, he had long
before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists,
thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these
good theological works, giving profitable employment to the
youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their
minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of
his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from
day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society.
Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the
Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset,
and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and
its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and
utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its
main objects. ... The members were called 'Brethren of the
Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good
Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and
'Gregorians.' ... Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and
prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with
each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also
their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the
community. From this source, and from donations and legacies
made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a
certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is
true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed
rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world,
with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a
way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve
the principle of individual liberty."
C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation,
volume 2, part 2, chapter l.
"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of
teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common
Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools
in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and
almost in every village, so that popular education was the
rule."
W. E. Griffis, The Influence of the Netherlands, page 3.
ALSO IN: S. Kettlewell, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers
of Common Life, chapter 5-6 (volume 1).
BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.
See BEGUINES.
BRETIGNY, Treaty of.
The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded
May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of
France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the
French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner
in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne,
Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and
Guisnes.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
BRETWALDA.
A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions
differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and
Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble
construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without
duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in
England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this
'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of
the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia,
who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of
Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin,
Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to
Kent."
O. Elton, Origins of English History, page 392, note.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of
England, volume 1, appendix B.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527,
and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
{317}
BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617,
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.
BREYZAD.
The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
BRIAN BORU,
The reign in Ireland of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
BRIDGE, Battle of the.
A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in
their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force
of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of
boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of
them slain or drowned.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter
26.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRIENNE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BRIGANTES, The.
One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient
Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original
pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman
conquest they held the whole interior northward from the
Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by
Agricola.
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1.
See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES,
and A. D. 43-53;
also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
BRIGANTINE.--BERGANTIN.
See CARAVELS.
BRIHUEGA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
BRILL, The capture of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
BRISBANE.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.
BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793
(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
BRISSOTINS.
The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was
sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its
leaders.
BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BRISTOL: 12th Century.
Its slave trade and other commerce.
"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been
in general character and aspect not unlike what it is
to-day--a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the
eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen
from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and
the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had
long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty
current which still kept its heathen name derived from the
sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them
into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a
thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading
centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the
kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and
London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however,
reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S.
Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely
availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men
for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full
career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the
experiences of the canons of Laon."
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter
1.
BRISTOL: A. D. 1497.
Cabot's voyage of discovery.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
BRISTOL: A. D. 1645.
The storming of the city by Fairfax.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BRISTOL: A. D. 1685.
The commerce and wealth of the city.
"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood
Bristol, then the first English seaport. ... Pepys, who
visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck
by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high;
for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in
Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but
houses. ... A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a
labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great
solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was
danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger
also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore
conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by
dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not
by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains
of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with
good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned,
and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners
regaled their visitors. ... This luxury was supported by a
thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with
the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so
strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol
who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia
or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of
the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic
possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this
demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and
kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this
system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol.
... The number of houses appears, from the returns of the
hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. ...
The population of Bristol must therefore have been about
29,000."
Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).
BRISTOL: A. D. 1831.
The Reform Bill Riots.
The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the
action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led
to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol.
"The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality;
and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the
whole kingdom. ...
{318}
The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a
worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while
the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city
in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society
proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than
enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are
circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots
being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles
Wetherell--then at the height of his unpopularity as a
vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill--was recorder; and there
he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial
capacity. ... The symptoms of discontent were such as to
induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for
military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse,
which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the
city. ... Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to
relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by
the magistrates themselves. ... On Saturday, October 29, Sir
Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he
reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty
well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that
he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the
special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion
House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but
there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion
House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the
military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to
clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was
'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from
his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it
was after violence had been committed, and when the passions
of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped
from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were
heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and
the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower
windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings.
On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion
House without opposition; and from the time they got into the
cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the
necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the
bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without
orders, and their officers without that sanction of the
magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but
only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers
naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on
their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the
mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six
hundred. ... The mob declared openly what they were going to
do; and they went to work unchecked--armed with staves and
bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the
Mansion House--to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail,
the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They
gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in
the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession,
till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins.
The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The
greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty
years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday
scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned
whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the
offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning,
after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last
made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a
considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary
became active; and from that time the city was in a more
orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it.
... The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel
Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of
the military. The result of that court-martial caused more
emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and
burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that
fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the
magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of
the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the
prosecution of his brother-magistrates."
H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).
----------BRISTOL: End----------
BRITAIN, Count and Duke of.
The military commanders of Roman Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337,
also ARTHUR, KING.
BRITAIN, The name.
See BRITANNIA.
BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.
"It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the
district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by
the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's
time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the
Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the
sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ
occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol
Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire
and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district
extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the
island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's
End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the
Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and
the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern
county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending
northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of
Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north
of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of
Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi
possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester,
Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern
part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes
last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and
Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani,
and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this
tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these
were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were
the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. ... The
interior of the island northward was occupied by the
Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of
approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending
from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of
Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included
several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the
Jugantes and the Cangi].
{319}
The Brigantes are believed to have been the original
inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by
successive invasions. ... Wales, also, was inhabited by a
primitive population. The northern counties ... was the
territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties ... were
held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the
Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor,
Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the
Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of
the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were
inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom
seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little
above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than
twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni,
inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. ...
Next to them were the Gadeni. ... The Selgovæ inhabited
Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the
East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of
Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from
the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward
to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth
and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers
lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali
or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the
Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones,
the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the
Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part
of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior,
known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended
from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth,
northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle
parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which
appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of
Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes
north of the Brigantes."
T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.
J. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 2.
BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
Cæsar's invasions.
Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel
and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed
the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in
Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men.
Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either
Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British
coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed
his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and
offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's
fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their
submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second
battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages;
whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the
continent, having remained in Britain not more than three
weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The
following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on
making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had
five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the
expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He
sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having
established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into
the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at
a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury.
A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance,
compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had
been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on
the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose
kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much
fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a
point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he
pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of
Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the
site of the modern town of St. Albans,--but the point is It
disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus,
and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should
pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast,
reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this
occasion was about sixty days.
Cæsar, Gallic War, book 4, chapter 20-36,
and book 7, chapter 7-33.
ALSO IN:
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 2.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 9 and
11-12.
T. Lewin, Invasion of Britain by Cæsar.
F. T. Vine, Cæsar in Kent.
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2.
BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
Conquests of Claudius.
Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of
Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce
their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the
imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that
the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus
Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four
legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way
for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one,
Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed
him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman
history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of
the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces
strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they
summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the
close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by
the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or
stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied
the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes,
whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered.
Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to
Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in
command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot,
into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate
tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the
command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and
Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power
was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the
East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of
South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under
Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and
Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and
Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen
dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes,
and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern
England, were still independent, but distracted by internal
dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive.
This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of
Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A.
D. 43 and 54.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.
ALSO IN:
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 4.
See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
{320}
BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.
From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor
Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the
Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus
came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His
first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona,
or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and
Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable
hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently,
though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the
practice of their unholy superstition. ... Here they retained
their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was
the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the
abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night
or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he
should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From
Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai
Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the
Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was
fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers;
but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment
the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were
exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for
Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman
commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst
of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the
Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of
Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been
allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own
king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king,
Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and
children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the
Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and
her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the
insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They
appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of
indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and
general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if
arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and
unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the
intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the
country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum
(Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and
Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than
70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without
mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful
news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great
highway of Watling Street--gathering up his forces in hand as
he went--to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had
collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast
swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that
he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once
more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself
on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons
are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The
insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain
reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the
broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was,
presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific
commander.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.
ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 5.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
Campaigns of Agricola.
For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A.
D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain.
The military power in the island suffered great
demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs
at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased
soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who
had attained first in Britain the footing from which he
climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of
his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius
Agricola was the soldier and statesman--a great man in each
character--whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made
prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first
summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and
when none even of his own officers expected active service,
Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in
whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered,
drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them
into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly
crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another
summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the
Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district,
lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps
with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the
Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in
the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of
forts from sea to sea. ... In the third year of his command,
Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making
good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress,
reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. ... Here he
repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his
camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt
of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The
next two years were spent in strengthening his position and
organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond
the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of
which was made memorable by the famous battle of the
Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero
Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet
northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter
tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola
circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and
saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the
successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall.
Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his
victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was
envious and afraid of his renown.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 61.
ALSO IN:
Tacitus, Agricola.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
{321}
BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries.
Introduction of Christianity.
See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.
BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
Campaigns of Severus.
A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman
Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit
the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons,
Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those
troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the
wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far
as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities
for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several
attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in
his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till
his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of
February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war
against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the
northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said;
above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the
march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The
Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were
soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them
to extermination, when he died.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
Rebellion of Carausius.
"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] ... the pirate
fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became
needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of
this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by
birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order
that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their
booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself,
therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A.
D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast
number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so
many that the history of Carausius has been written from his
medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who
usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had
well-nigh established their power over the south portion of
Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of
Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive
battle, in which that usurper was slain. ... Allectus held the
government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are
found."
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 10.
ALSO IN: T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 4.
BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
Constantine's Organization.
Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and
amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast
pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian
deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a
'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five
new provinces. ... Britain was under the orders of the Count
of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of
Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore,
governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of
the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of
Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the
opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the
harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into
which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:--
1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of
England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.
2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of
Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel
on the west.
3. Flavia Cæsariensis,--all the middle portion of Britain,
from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.
4. Maxima Cæsariensis,--the Brigantian territory, lying
between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier
of the Lower Isthmus.
5. Valentia,--the most northern portion, lying between the
barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."
H. M. Scarth. Roman Britain, chapter 10.
Britain: A. D. 367-370.
Deliverance By Theodosius.
The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that
soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by
Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death,
proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes
of Caledonia--the Picts, now beginning to be associated with
the Scots from Ireland--became bolder from year to year in
their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent
of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious,
that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome
that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened
by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other
provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military
virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them.
Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of
the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was
charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced
the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having
been able to bring them to an engagement."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 5.
"The splendour of the cities and the security of the
fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care
of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling
Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and
perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of
Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
Revolt of Maximus.
In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been
associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor
Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous
Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt
that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by
birth, occupying a high official position in that province,
forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a
people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the
standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul,
attended by a large multitude,--130,000 men and 70,000 women,
says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling
in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany,
which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon
victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the
Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who
divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while
Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons;
Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. ... Theodosius
adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew
Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).
J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 5.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 27.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{322}
BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
The Usurpation Of Constantine.
"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was
falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and
fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their
dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the
Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the
imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social
position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each
time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a
private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other
reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been
already borne by a general who had been carried by a British
army to supreme dominion."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 5.
The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the
channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans
and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed
with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned
to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine
had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German
invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his
cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the
precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made,
on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during
two or three years. The seat of his government was established
at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman
Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the
help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a
curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended
his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the
pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped
royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the
Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The
lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became
for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named
Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and
shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius,
at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general
Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius,
approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The
latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon
afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the
great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of
Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the
way (A. D. 411).
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 10.
BRITAIN: A. D. 410.
Abandoned By The Romans.
"Up to the moment ... when the Imperial troops quitted
Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its
barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left
Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor
Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs
which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the
Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and
the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses.
But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the
Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so
long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth
century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage
mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the
Empire. ... The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by
military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain,
where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough
and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and
followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The
last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in
407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and
the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for
it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain'
who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians.
... They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and
replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed
to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade
Britain provide for its own government and its own defence.
Few statements are more false than those which picture the
British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the
barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact,
through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and
so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the
Empire. ... For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the
legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against
her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still
the least formidable. .... It was with this view that Britain
turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and
strove to find ... troops whom she could use as mercenaries
against the Pict."
J. R. Green, The Making of England, introduction.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 57-66.
BRITAIN: A. D. 446.
The Last Appeal To Rome.
"Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman
general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446.
... Ætius was unable to help them."
J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, page 63.
"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of
their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the
third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea
casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of
death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third
Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the
West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the
onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no
trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and
our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its
rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is
possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the
whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the
days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."
C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 12.
{323}
BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633.
The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.
BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.
The Unsubdued Britons.
"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the
island, where they maintained themselves in several small
states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more
to Germanic influence; the others protected by their
mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually
decreasing independence. ... In the south-west we meet with
the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur,
which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later
period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the
separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the
Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas
(Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of
Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a
large British population maintained itself in those parts
among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long
after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable
time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of
the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the
present day we call Wales, was divided into several states."
The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the
king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these
latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was
east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or
South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and
laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the
same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although
of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the
Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and
customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in
the early part of the 10th century. ... The partition of
Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been
supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri
Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. ... Of Dyfed,
during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we
know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in
constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information
is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia,
frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a
mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and
precision in that which we possess. ... An obscurity still
more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to
the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."
J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, page 119-122.
See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.
BRITAIN: A. D. 635.
Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.
See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.
----------BRITAIN: End----------
BRITAIN, GREAT:
ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.
See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
BRITANNIA,
The Origin Of The Name.
"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the
etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have
been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one
of those philological difficulties which we need despair of
solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is
connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania,
Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it
is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally
nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word
Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of
the three tribes who first colonized Britain. ... From the
Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come
Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted
men. ... As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to
be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also
Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name
first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a
question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is
generally supposed. ... The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest
name we find given to these islands in the classical writers.
Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection
with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c.
3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' ... But
in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named
work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot
assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use
before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first
occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented
by him."
E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, chapter 1.
The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr.
Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary,
traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh
vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes
that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.
BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
{324}
BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871.
Establishment of provincial government.
Union with the Dominion of Canada.
"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces,
cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until
1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a
series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of
the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not
within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a
hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and
difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the
gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the
licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the
Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the
government of British Columbia. ... Sir James Douglas was
appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to
make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order
and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation
issued under the public seal of the colony. ... The Governor
continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his
proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor
with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. ... Up
to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also
Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's
Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia.
Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to
Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when
the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a
Governor was appointed. ... In 1865 the legislature of the
island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with
British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i),
c. 67, the two colonies were united. ... By an Order in Council
dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared
to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and
1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."
J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.
ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 27: British Columbia.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872.
Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.
See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.
----------BRITISH COLUMBIA: End----------
BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
BRITISH HONDURAS.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.
See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA;
and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.
See CUMBRIA.
BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY:
In The Roman Period.
See ARMORICA;
also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
BRITTANY: A. D. 383.
Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.
BRITTANY: A. D. 409.
Independence Asserted.
At the time that the British island practically severed its
connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the
Britons of the continent,--of the Armorican province, or
modern Brittany,--followed the example. "They expelled the
Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the
usurper Constantine; and a free government was established
among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary
will of a master."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of
Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not
entirely disappeared even at the present day."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.
The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of
the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day
at Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.
The Breyzad Kingdom.
Subjection To The Norman Dukes.
"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared
to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the
Caucasian tribes--periods during which the vassals dare not
claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the
converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of
authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of
the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races
inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the
determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided
into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according
to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages
respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here
the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his
successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad,
Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a
delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of
the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. ...
The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase
his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so
stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. ... Nominoë
assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his
ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to
assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political
argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper
Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his
son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a
conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne.
Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks,
and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard
upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions
considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and
his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he,
too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in
prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy
established his lordship over the distracted country.
"Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which
also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes,
Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling
and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity,
until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan
Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of
William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all
Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's
lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John--an unjust
exercise of justice."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3.
BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237.
The First Dukes.
"After the death of Solomon ... all these districts or
territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes,
and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In
early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by
Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes
acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality
vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] ... must be
distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted
himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may
possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter;
and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became
ultimately recognized. ... The Counts of Brittany, and the
Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en
parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same
homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the
Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the
time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of
Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England.,
volume 3, page 165.
{325}
BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.
The Long Civil War.
Montfort Against Blois.
Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years
War of the English kings in France, there broke out a
malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French
and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III.
duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals
disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois,
husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France;
the other, Montfort, ... younger brother of the last duke and
... disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the
king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew.
Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest
places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III.
of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which
Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by
England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and
presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of
treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in
1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was
slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior,
was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of
Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.
E. De Bonnechose, History of France,
volume 1, book 2, chapter 2 and 4.
ALSO IN:
Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 64-227.
BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.
Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.
The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy
of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally
inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom
permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the
conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an
attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to
foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges,
and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments
of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of
the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the
male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His
daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among
whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who
seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a
member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton
nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties
of their country, but whose age rendered him not very
acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the
Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482].
Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the
regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of
interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her
private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her
father's death, finding no other means of escaping the
addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This,
however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was
resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion.
And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient
pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments,
she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles
VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry
the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at
the French court. But this engagement had not prevented
several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the
towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which
the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the
heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted
contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in
view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair
part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored
Artois and Franche-comté. ... France was now consolidated into
a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.
In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of
Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions
upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered
requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with
France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her
consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future
king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir
of the crown."
E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 26.
BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.
Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.
"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose
administration was ... shameful, promoted one measure of high
utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in
the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to
unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and
he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request
this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the
breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was
irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532.
The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to
raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States
Provincial."
E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.
BRITTANY: A. D. 1793.
Resistance To The French Revolution.
The Vendean War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
(JULY-DECEMBER).
BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796.
The Chouans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
----------BRITTANY: End----------
BRIXHAM CAVE.
A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted
evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with
certain extinct animals, have been found.
J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe.
ALSO IN: W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting.
{326}
BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
BROAD CHURCH, The.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.
BRONZE AGE.
See STONE AGE.
BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624.
The First Settlers.
"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on
Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had
secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were
engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India
Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were
the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a
few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a
village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly
forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134
souls."
G. V. Schuyler, Colonial New York, York, v 1, page 27.
BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646.
The Town Named And Organized.
"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city
of Brooklyn ... had steadily progressed, until now (1646)
nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the
southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of
individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. ...
The village ... which was located on the present Fulton
Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith
streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City
Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the
same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town
of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the
Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The
following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.
H. R. Stiles, History of Brooklyn, chapter 1.
BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776.
The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
----------BROOKLYN: End----------
BROTHERS.--BROTHERHOODS.
See BRETHREN.
BROTHERS' CLUB, The.
See CLUBS.
BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
BROWN, John.
Attack On Harper's Ferry.
Trial And Execution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
BROWNISTS.
See INDEPENDENTS.
BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.
BRUCHIUM, The.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.
BRUCTERI, The.
"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the
Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and
Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and
utterly exterminated them with the common help of the
neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or
from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable
regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the
conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms
and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."
"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they
were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been
between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe.
Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as
Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by
Claudian."
Tacitus, Minor works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
The Germany, with geographical notes.
See, also, FRANKS.
BRUGES: 13th CENTURY.
The Great Fair.
See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.
BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES.
Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BRUGES: A. D. 1302.
Massacre Of The French.
"The Bruges Matins."
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
BRUGES: A. D. 1341.
Made the Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381.
Hostilities With Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.
BRUGES: A. D. 1382.
Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488.
At War With Maximilian.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
BRUGES: A. D. 1584.
Submission to Philip of Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748.
Taken By The French, And Restored.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.
----------BRUGES: End----------
BRULÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER).
BRUNDISIUM:
Origin.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49.
Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.
See ROME: B. C. 50-49.
BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40.
The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.
The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own
soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten
years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For
a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of
Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except
one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the
Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 27.
See also, ROME: B. C. 31.
----------BRUNDISIUM: End----------
BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.
BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF.
Origin And Name.
In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the
reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry
the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the
Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by
Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the
'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city,
afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it
formed the capital."
Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, book 4.
{327}
BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.
See HANSA TOWNS.
BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.
See HANOVER.
BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK:
Origin Of The House And Dukedom.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY,
and A. D. 1178-1183.
BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.
See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543.
Expulsion Of Duke Henry By
The League Of Smalcald.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546.
Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The
House.
See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806.
The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807.
Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830.
Deposition of the Duke.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.
----------BRUNSWICK: End----------
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577.
The Union Of The Patriots.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585.
Surrender to the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695.
BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706.
Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815.
The Battle Of Waterloo.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830.
Riot And Revolution.
Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
----------BRUSSELS: End----------
BRUTTII, The.
See SAMNITES.
BRUTUM FULMEN.
A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and
ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a
contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of
excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of
Navarre, in 1585.
H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
volume 1, page 369.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.
See ROME: B. C. 510.
BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.
See ROME: B. C. 44 to 44-42.
BRYTHONS, The.
See CELTS, THE.
BUBASTIS.
"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than
half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of
Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and
preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered
fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to
which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers
to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of
Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had
fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short
space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."
R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10.
BUCCANEERS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
BUCENTAUR, The.
See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.
BUCHANAN, JAMES.
Presidential Election And Administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.
BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).
See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES
(SERVIA).
BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.
BUCKTAILS.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
BUDA: A. D. 1526.
Taken And Plundered By The Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567.
Taken by the Turks.
Besieged by the Austrians.
Occupied by the Sultan.
Becomes the seat of a Pasha.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
BUDA: A. D. 1686.
Recovery from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
BUDA: A. D. 1849.
Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
----------BUDA: End----------
BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872.
Union Of The Cities.
Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left,
were incorporated in 1872 into one city--Buda-Pesth.
BUDDHISM.
See INDIA: B. C. 312;
also LAMAS.--LAMAISM;
and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
BUDGET, The.
"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways
and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view
of the general financial policy of the government, and at the
same time presents an estimate of the probable income and
expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement
of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new
ones it may be necessary to impose.--To open the budget, to
lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and
plans of the executive government."
Imp. Dict.
Mr. Dowell in his History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5)
states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in
England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a
reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the
chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he
adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The
following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's
explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used
with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which
ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or
'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been
current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon
taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."
Athenæum, February 14, 1891, page 213.
{328}
BUDINI, The.
A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently
inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian
Sea.
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.
BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534.
First and unsuccessful founding of the city.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
BUFFALO, New York:
The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764.
Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779.
The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799.
The founding and naming of the city.
See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812.
At The Opening Of The War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813.
Destruction by British and Indians.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825.
Opening of the Erie Canal.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848.
The National Free-soil Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1866.
The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
----------BUFFALO, New York: End----------
BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
BULGARIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.
See PAULICIANS.
BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."
Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding
"the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under
penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths,
twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the
goods of the churches or their ministers."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 14.
ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical
Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4, number 6.
See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
BULL, Golden.
See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.
A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one
Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to
bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BULLA, THE.
See TOGA.
BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
BUNDES-STAAT.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.
BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE).
BURDIGALA.
The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a
town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 7.
BURGAGE TENURE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
BURGESS.
See BOURGEOIS.
BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.
See BOROUGH.
BURGOS, BATTLE OF.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY);
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
BURGRAVES.
See PALATINE, COUNTS.
BURGUNDIANS:
Origin And Early History.
"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries,
perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe,
were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians--a
warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure
name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has
finally settled on a flourishing province. . . . The disputed
possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the
Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily
tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the
emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent
from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison
the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity,
as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore
thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine,
and impatiently required the support and subsidies which
Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses
and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation,
they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of
the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just
resentment."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{329}
"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of
Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on
either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended
southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to
recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of
them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the
remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul.
They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the
sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them
lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of
the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted
Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that
they were a most warlike race."
J. G. Sheppard, The Fall of Rome, lecture 8.
"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the
Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the
valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns
(bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they
looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of
mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the
Merovingians, chapter 3.
"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands
between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following
expression,--'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks
for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word
'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. ...
I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of
land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the
one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian
and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was
probably, almost wholly political."
R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 12.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409.
Invasion Of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
Their Savoyan Kingdom.
"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many
wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the
consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and
now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than
the province which was the cradle of the present royal house
of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of
Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the
Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy
settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the
lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half
the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle
names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the
terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all
hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451.
At The Battle Of Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
Extension Of Their Kingdom.
"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive
than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion,
now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté
and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of
Switzerland--in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and
the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course
the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the
mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D.
500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two
brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and
Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired
with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in
this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at
Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But
Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and
captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put
him to death--thereby reuniting the kingdom.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534.
Final Conquest By The Franks.
"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the
Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of
Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic
Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but
the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of
his innocent son. ... It was his humble prayer that Heaven
would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His
prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces
of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks.
After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond ... with
his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and
buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons
of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the
maxims and examples of their barbarous age. ... The rebellious
Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were
still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the
obligation of tribute and military service; and the
Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose
glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of
Clovis."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 38.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN: W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.
----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------
BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752.
The Merovingian Kingdom.
After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of
Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the
neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the
name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms
(Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the
Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the
east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from
Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the
north."
P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapter 13.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
Divisions of the early kingdom.
The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the
northwest.
By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the
empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of
Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the
kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further
dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence
was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married
Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire.
It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy,
and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is
sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The
kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, ... founded by Rudolf in A.
D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf,
included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland
between the Reuss and the Jura."
J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6, and appendix, note A.
{330}
"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united,
in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed
the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le
Pacifique."
F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 24.
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4.
"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,
such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,
Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his
[Conrad the Pacific's] states."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, France Under the Feudal
System, chapter 2.
"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part,
forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in
the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or
the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for
its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of
dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then
at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to
bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French
Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal
Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms
mentioned above.
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1.
BURGUNDY: A. D, 888-1032.
The French Dukedom.
The Founding Of The First Capetian House.
Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the
old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been
discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have
become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of
the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the
aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the
early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke
was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue
is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a
brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor
Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to
fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South
(Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,--see above). Richard's son
Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count
of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen
king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King
Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the
Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son
Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his
taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the
proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his
brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven
years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the
crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It
now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on
the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of
Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his
English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name,
he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion
wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy
was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no
son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a
brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was
too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the
young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the
larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the
County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the
regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he
now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so
obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political
results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier
bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of
France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made
by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing
the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of
Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the
third race [the Capetians] could enjoy--the rival of the
throne."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapter 1-4.
Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his
talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was
divided between his children, who were yet very young. ...
There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their
birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his
three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of
Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of
Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho
succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the
duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named
Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who
succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was
but the second son."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the
Carlovingians, chapter 15.
In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the
lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry
remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his
royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the
Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry
I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother
Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.
E. de Bonnechose, History of France,
book 1, chapter 2.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
The Last Kingdom.
Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.
The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy--though more
often called the kingdom of Arles--formed, as stated above,
by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and
Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the
dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent
king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle
to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his
heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf
attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to
Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however,
the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor,
Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the
union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled
almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of
the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal.
Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the
Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now
German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too
distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire
ever really to form a part of it. ... Yet Switzerland was
thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany,
and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."
C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 2, chapter 6-7.
{331}
"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made
Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the
great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of
consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to
remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the
White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House
of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of
Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to
the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house
of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count
of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of
Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a
brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was
sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout
the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom
of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that
of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his
expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other
hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance
under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the
succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of
the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the
barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We
can still follow the formation of a great number of other
feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of
Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts
of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this
epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their
diplomas and their wills."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, France under
the Feudal System, chapter 2.
See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.
End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.
"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength
at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to
make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of
the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important
in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an
easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to
acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which
soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to
maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the
Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de
Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an
adequate account of this struggle. ... From the times of the
mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning
Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D.
1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of
sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate.
Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors
exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing
brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably
came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the
county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local
dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of
Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III.
the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the
Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the
clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and
Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look
upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector
from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period
saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England--see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than
the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance
between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian
emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term
in which they could strive to win back a real hold over
Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His
investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the
kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy
merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of
Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the
Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against
Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his
constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in
the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the
French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within
its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile
could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the
Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of
St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother,
Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in
later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so
strong that their local interests made them enemies rather
than friends of the extension of French power on their
borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the
merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced
without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made
himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of
Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. . . . The residence
of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French
advance. ... Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were
strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their
greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the
Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task.
Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained
Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against
him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the
French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny,
henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the
French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the
French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of
Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI.
of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth
the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that
it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the
theoretical claims of the Empire."
The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891, reviewing "Le Royaume
d'Arles et de Vienne," par Paul Fournier.
{332}
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401.
Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake
Geneva.
See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364.
The French Dukedom.
The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.
The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which
descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December,
1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de
Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his
residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he
had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at
the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his
grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy
(Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and
Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the
young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of
Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a
Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the
young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his
claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad,
King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right
of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the
original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary
provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together
with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of
Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed
to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity
for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the
powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but
he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it
away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son--the
fourth--the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had
stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of
Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a
deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the
great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless
and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the
young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought
about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom
the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of
Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich
county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus
was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal
power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of
the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century
had passed.
Froissart (Johnes) Chronicles, book 1, chapter 216.
ALSO IN: F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 22.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383.
Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453.
Civil war with the Armagnacs.
Alliance with the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419;
1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430.
Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467.
Charles The Bold.
His Position, Between Germany And France.
His Antagonism To Louis Xi.
The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.
Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became
Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip,
misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it
requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to
take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first
princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing
an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some
superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to
one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been
invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that,
if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among
the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of
his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal
of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of
his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of
them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of
his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French
Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and
Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant,
Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and
counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His
dominions were large in positive extent, and they were
valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other
prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and
flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing
through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of
his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably
greater and more prosperous than those of France or England;
and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were
not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths,
acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord;
Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy
especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money.
So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over
every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his
dominions were further removed than those of any prince in
Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one
kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies,
counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by
different titles and of different overlords, speaking
different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted
according to different rules of succession. ... They lay in
two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low
Countries forming the other, so that their common master could
not go from one capital to another without passing through a
foreign territory.
{333}
And, even within these two great masses, there were portions
of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was
no hope of annexing by fair means. ... The career of Charles
the Bold ... divides itself into a French and a German
portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry
of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is
carried on openly within the French territory, while in the
second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more
effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. ... As a
French prince, he joined with other French princes to put
limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom
into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be
of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part
in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468],
and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the
establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent
Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a
compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to
keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as
Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually
conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the
crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief
of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the
deadly enemy, of the French King. ... Chronologically and
geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great
barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to
call it, between the main divisions of European history and
European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of
Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and
the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They
connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast
dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and
which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in
the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions
of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical
position. They may be said to bind together the whole of
European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th
century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely
gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western
Kingdoms--in modern language, between Germany and France.
From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have
been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle
state between the two. Over and over again during that long
period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of
the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to
the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. ...
That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never
seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the
Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of
Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his
frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. ... Holding, as he did, parts
of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no
doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle
Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been
Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as
others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a
state which should hold a central position between France,
Germany and Italy--a state which should discharge, with
infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age
has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy.
... Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest
of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."
E. A. Freeman, Charles the Bold (Historical Essays, 1st
series, no. 11).
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.
The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois
and his troubles with Louis XI.
"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see
FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war
against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and
whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to
interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the
Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois
underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him
to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or
truce among themselves. ... During these wars, and ever since,
secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The
king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of
Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. ... The king of
France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design
against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a
more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less
resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons
were the people who protected and entertained all his
malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and
intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he
endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by
several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him
to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would
abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his
malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to
it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois,
who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke
(Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a
garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000
strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were
routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres
were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable
strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who
entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for
his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer
the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne
and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his
ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely
anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary
step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard,
trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it
happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne,
that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced
beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis
had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making
purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained
from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster
escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy
Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally
assisting the latter to inflict it.
{334}
"After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at
Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the
Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for
Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was
the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king
had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his
standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join
him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had
been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn
defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate
sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and
the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by
this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a
grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town
the next morning--Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day
almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying
across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their
homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King
Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in
desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before
the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures
who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken,
and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also
resolved to burn the city, which had always been very
populous; and orders were given for firing it in three
different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of
Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit
and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but
to secure the churches. ... All things being thus ordered, the
Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was
no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number
of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night
four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as
distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was
the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river,
that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke
marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the
conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches
(except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses
belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which
was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked
thither to live with the priests."
Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 2.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapter 7-9;
book 2.
P. F. Willert, The Reign of Louis XI.
Sir. W. Scott, Quentin Durward.
See, also, DINANT.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
Charles The Bold And The Swiss.
His Defeats And His Death.
The Effects Of His Fall.
"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of
Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles
wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland,
and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to
recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had
existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself
that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick
III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his
hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine
from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in
order to join his northern states with those in the south. The
conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the
Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already
celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of
liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the
Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura,
besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a
capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or
drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed
the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the
town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked
the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months
later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine,
despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second
Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled
a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy,
which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers.
It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his
mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."
E. de Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.
"And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of
sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss,
in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not
forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he
would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small
and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the
Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies
would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time
the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the
world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were
mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of
Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value
of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common
soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the
world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold
quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous
of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great
diamond, ... with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a
Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken
up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a
priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the
magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as
a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous
Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition
which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took
three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another
large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of
Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world;
besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last
battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of
that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He
encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and
Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect,
with the help of the king of France and others. It was against
the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong,
half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater
one, and he paid the penalty.
{335}
It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in
the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped
naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was
found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine
towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether
towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the
field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed
peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars
against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon
account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that
arose among them. ... As I had seen these princes puissant,
rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I
think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I
never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent,
so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their
furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in
their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and
entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the
subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have
exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion
that I have rather said too little. ... In short, I have seen
this family in all respects the most flourishing and
celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space
of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left
the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as
regards both prince and subjects."
Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapters 1-9.
"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold
and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and
encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by
the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach
to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side
with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies
complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the
fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not
Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of
the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss
territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the
beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the
Confederation. ... The mere political accident that the
country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of
the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to
determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat
are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were
defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have
been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss
side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The
simple fact that it was only through the result of the
Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss
territory at once disposes of this line of argument. ... The
plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war
declared by Switzerland against Burgundy ... and that in the
campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was
simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own
territory and the territory of his allies."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, volume 1, number 11.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 5.
L. S. Costello, Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy, chapter 14-27.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.
Permanently restored to the French crown
Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while
Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his
strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of
the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it
caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking
possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had
reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The
legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left
an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as
well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of
succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable.
Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females,
and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned.
But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of
appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to
the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's
investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful
heirs, without designation of sex. The construction,
therefore, must be left to the established course of law.
This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's
daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted
appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been
considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed
it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first
dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through
females. Such was this question of succession between Louis
XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions
I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only
observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be
excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably,
at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage
ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of
Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all
further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far
more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of
Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France."
The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a
masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis
despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all
events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded
actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and
Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which
were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to
him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the
French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess
married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic--a
connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was
impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the
growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred
years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left
one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.
{336}
"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily
pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he
triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his
enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of
his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose
him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. . . . Although
God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his
determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely,
not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and
estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right
measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead
of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have
endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he
had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of
marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the
people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which
he might, without any great difficulty, have effected,
considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and
dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not
only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended
and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in
a firm and lasting peace."
Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapter 12.
"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of
Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of
Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old
privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his
successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a
land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all
the great lords to come over to him."
J. Michelet, History of France, book 17, ch.. 3-4.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482.
Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands.
Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
----------BURGUNDY: End----------
BURH, The.
See BOROUGH.
BURI, The.
A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in
the neighborhood of modern Cracow.
Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb.
Geographical notes.
BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).
BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.
See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.
BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.
See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
BURMA:
Rise of the kingdom.
First war with the English (1824-1826).
Cession of Assam and Aracan.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
BURMA: A. D. 1852.
Second war with the English.
Loss of Pegu.
See INDIA: A. D. 1852.
BURNED CANDLEMAS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Command of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Deliverance of East Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER:
TENNESSEE.
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Defense of Knoxville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
At the siege of Petersburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA).
BURR, Aaron.
Duel with Hamilton.
Conspiracy.
Arrest.
Trial.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.
BUSACO, Battle of (1810).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
BUSHMEN, The.
See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
BUSHWHACKERS.
A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits
of the southwest in the American Civil War.
J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 6, page 371.
BUSIRIS.
Destroyed by Diocletian.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
BUSSORAH AND KUFA,
The rise and importance of.
In the first years of their conquest and occupation of
Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris--as
early as A. D. 638--the Moslems founded two cities which
acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these
cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs
for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors
in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah,
or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said
to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain
very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates.
"Kufa and Bussorah . . . had a singular influence on the
destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast
majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of
pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families,
scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into
Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these
two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south
predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew
into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population
each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature,
theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater
influence than the whole Moslem world besides. ... The people
became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into
hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element,
conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and
impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus
factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise
arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually
rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."
Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 18.
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
BUTADÆ, The.
See PHYLÆ.
BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
In command at Baltimore.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
In command at Fortress Monroe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).
{337}
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
The Hatteras Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
Command at New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).
BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
Command of the Army of the James.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
BUTLER, Walter,
The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).
BUTTERNUTS.
See BOYS IN BLUE;
Also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
BYRON, Lord, in Greece.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
BYRSA.
The citadel of Carthage.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
BYTOWN.
The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of
Canada.
See OTTAWA.
BYZACIUM.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium
(modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be
found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to
717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the
Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is
questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to
be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some
discussion of these questions,
See ROME: A. D. 717-800.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
Its part in history.
Its defence of Europe.
Its civilizing influence.
"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the
oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and
Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and
Africanus. ... Until the days of the crusades, the German
nations did not combine with the Empire against the common
foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success
of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be
reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but
that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When
there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the
Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people
who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few
there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so
bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I
may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by
victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those
successes sink into insignificance by the side of the
achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the
gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the
Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone
knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible
how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the
greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the
real danger lay. .... The Empire was much more than the
military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended
but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture.
We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a
highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as
yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse
of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was
partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an
incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice,
which contributed so much to the growth of western culture,
was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time
nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it
taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the
Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been
the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style
of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any
other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when
they needed men of learning, and thither students from western
countries, who desired a university education, repaired. ...
It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old
Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were
preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to
the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And
in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The
Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European
civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place
the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained
European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest
importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts
concerning which contemporary historians did not think of
leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the
Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages
speaks for itself. ... In the fourth place, the Roman Empire
preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of
western European history down to the present day--the idea of
the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of
800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself
into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great
idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave
back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her
five centuries before. ... If Constantinople and the Empire
had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the
whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans
really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and
the system which brought law and order into the political
relations of the West."
J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2).
BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717.
Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.
"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of
Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of
the Eastern Empire. ... When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor
[A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save
Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens
considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains
of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an
Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a
heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the
victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the
whole administration so completely in accordance with the new
exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire
outlived for many centuries every government contemporary
with its establishment.
{338}
The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern
historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised
to mark the changes effected in the government, after the
extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of
ancient Rome. ... The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire
had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into
Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he
recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was
reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine
government. The number of themes varied at different periods.
The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the
middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic
portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. ... The
European provinces were divided into eight continental and
five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the
exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and
Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern
Empire, acted generally as independent cities. ... When Leo
was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with
immediate ruin. ... Every army assembled to encounter the
Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and
Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople;
the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of
the Bosphorus."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. W. Brooks, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
(English History Review, April, 1893).
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.
The Isaurian dynasty.
The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until
the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A.
D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D.
802. It embraced the following reigns:
Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775;
Leo IV., 775-780;
Constantine VI., 780-797;
Irene, 797-802.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751.
The Iconoclastic Controversy.
Rupture with the West.
Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
End of authority in Italy.
See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors:
Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811;
Stauracius, A. D. 811;
Michael I., A. D. 811-813;
Leo V., A. D. 813-820.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803.
Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.
Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place;
Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a
revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and
patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to
his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called
Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one
of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the
Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded
a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A.
D. 867 to 1057--a period covering the following reigns:
Basil I., A. D. 867-886;
Leo VI., A. D. 886-911;
Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950;
Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944;
Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D, 944;
Romanus II., A. D. 959-963;
Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969;
John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976;
Basil II., A. D. 963-1025;
Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028;
Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034;
Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041;
Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042;
Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056;
Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054;
Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043.
Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.
See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900;
also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 870-1016.
Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
Recovery of prestige and territory.
"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine
government--and its history is but a series of crimes and
revolutions--it was never dismembered by intestine war. A
sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in
the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the
allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his
successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of
the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the
Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the
Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the
middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly,
but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from
its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For
about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial
wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors
seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have
become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing
distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers,
Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual
recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms
(one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over
Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus
submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient
boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of
Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate.
From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed
necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were
permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth
century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and
greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of
Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the
Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some
part of Syria and Armenia."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 6.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014.
Recovery of Bulgaria.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043;
also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054.
Ecclesiastical division of the
Eastern from the Roman Church.
See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY,
and ORTHODOX CHURCH.
{339}
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081.
Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties.
A dark period.
"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone,
the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double
scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the
empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were
pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period
of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius.
... The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne
Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an
able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and
incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals,
who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year
had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a
conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac
Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses,
and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and
his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of
his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest
upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when
he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired
to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to
Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for
seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:
Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071;
Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078;
Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.-
C. W. C. Oman, The Story of the Byzantine Empire, chapter 20.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092.
Disasters in Asia Minor.
See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073;
and A. D. 1073-1092.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064.
Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy
Land.
See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081.
The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.
Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for
him-self a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the
title of Duke of Apulia,--his duchy coinciding with the
subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples--conceived the ambitious
design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His
conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the
Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the
strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged,
moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the
imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it
to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of
right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young
daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose
expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to
Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To
promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of
the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks.
Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in
the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making
himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu),
and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to
Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to
reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery,
and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard
gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its
defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one
large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the
relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and
Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was
called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son
Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in
command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of
1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus
was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the
Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem,
lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was
then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an
important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and
Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of
conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards,
his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with
the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy
to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by
stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had
recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert
Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and
Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received
important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to
the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From
this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the
kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE:
A. D. 1081-1185.--The Comnenian emperors.
Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118;
John II., A. D. 1118-1143;
Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181;
Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183;
Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097.
The passage of the first Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily.
Sack of Thebes and Corinth.
When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in
Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in
his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions.
His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the
second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more
than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An
insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his
fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and
Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a
body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the
country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the
way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the
most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were
numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely
productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city
of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of
agricultural industry. ... All military spirit was now dead,
and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion
that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to
secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors,
secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at
their leisure. ... When all ordinary means of collecting booty
were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on
the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of
their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away
captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the
most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which
Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet
to labour at the oar. ...
{340}
Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years
later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city,
with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most
eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece.
The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior
quality after this invasion. ... From Bœotia the army passed
to Corinth. ... Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men
of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their
wives and families, were carried away into captivity. ... This
invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering
expedition. ... Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger
retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period
from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The
century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in
uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased
rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian
population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and
the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable
cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on
the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and
many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and
of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of
the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the
judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be
more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive
financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed
the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the
Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection
of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the
industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to
Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers
in their original occupations. He consequently collected all
their families together, and settled them at Palermo,
supplying them with the means of exercising their industry
with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own
subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the
rarest productions of the East. ... It is not remarkable that
the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in
the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."
G. Finlay, History of Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 3.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148.
Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204.
The Angeli.
Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195;
Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203;
Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders.
Sack of Constantinople.
The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line--the
brutal Andronicus I.--perished horribly in a wild
insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A.
D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to
the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before
his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or
virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign,
the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces
by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac
was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a
dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled
himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure
the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from
Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip,
the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown.
Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the
great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at
Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius
and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and
perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are
related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The
great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the
Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore
was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite
the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it
was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers
guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn--the harbor of
Constantinople--were captured, the chain removed, the harbor
occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the
17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on
the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the
Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and
another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians,
from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained
possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the
city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin
over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground,
and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly
Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and
blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was
ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill,
if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with
Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present
excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the
excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could
not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was
increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious
collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a
Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their
capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was
fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the
richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of
the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights,
sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The
suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the
Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the
two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of
the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated
them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public
feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which
crowned a new emperor,--one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed
Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met.
{341}
A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac
and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active
preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th
that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the
walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy
loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the
attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The
towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and
soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy,
burning without scruple--starting a third appalling
conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The
new emperor fled, the troops laid down their
arms,--Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began
the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal
were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right
to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and
sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more
systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army
of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city
than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to
chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and
bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. ...
'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal
[Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city.
Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were
enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly
rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver,
of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of
furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.'
... The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of
the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared
neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and
debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and
the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for
everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. ... A
large part of the booty had been collected in the three
churches designated for that purpose. ... The distribution was
made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in
bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues
were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they
were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing
for the art which had added value to the metal."
E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 14-15.
ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and
Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 3.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A, D. 1204.
Reign of Alexius V.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.
"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on
Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the
Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. ...
This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one
part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other,
for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in
the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation
of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine
Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it.
The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were
carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the
election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and
the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he
received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at
the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were
immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry
into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint
consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their
ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the
Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in
Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the
proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that
formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of
Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as
far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia.
Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed
districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the
Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with
those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire.
Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several
smaller islands, also fell to his share."
G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by
the Crusaders, chapter 4, section 1-2.
"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the
Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No
more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear
moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other
moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and
Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of
Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the
purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and
glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title
was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth
century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of
one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' ... They possessed
three of the eight quarters of the city. ... They had rashly
accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was
the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of
factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast,
from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the
Bosphorus. ... For the price of 10,000 marks the republic
purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of
Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. ... In the
moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of
Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides
the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he
had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was
compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the
Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and
difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or
Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he
might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his
brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. ... The lots of the Latin
pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent
exchange. ... At the head of his knights and archers each
baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his
share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But
the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a
thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose
sole umpire was the sword."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{342}
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The political shaping of the fragments.
See
ROMANIA.
THE EMPIRE;
GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
TREBIZOND;
EPIRUS:
NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387:
ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456:
SALONIKI.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The Greek restoration.
Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.
The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at
Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall
is told elsewhere.
See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453,
"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun
finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in
constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians.
She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she
was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest
still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a
sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her
organization. ... Of the seventy-six emperors and five
empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to
death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed
and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to
abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole
number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the
history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be
frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages
which but for them would be bright with the things which were
beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to
justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone
to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil
only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form
a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine
Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as
unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing
but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and
the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of
New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the
contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes
between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels
in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of
the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling
among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and
was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. ... The most
deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the
period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded,
was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the
Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe.
... The Byzantine people, although in every respect the
superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to
escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians
of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the
deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then
inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed
exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills
were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which
the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. ...
The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial
one great work in human history. That work was to preserve
civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the
Middle Ages. ... Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic
world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on
with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain
that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help.
'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall
of Constantinople,' ... Up to her last hour she had never
ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the
fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns
and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the
Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and
tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the
eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian
Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth,
the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and
the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The
wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it
was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from
destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed
the classical world, the civilization of the ancients,
modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual
development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine
Empire, if it be true that this development is the common
offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity
upon the other."
Demetrios Bikelas,
The Byzantine Empire (Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886).
----------BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End----------
BYZANTIUM,
Beginnings of.
The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of
the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded,
according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century
B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of
the city to control the important corn supply which came from
the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of
wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden
Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the
Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were
successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens
and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another
many times during their wars.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478.
Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440.
Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408.
Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340.
Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 340.
BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336.
Alliance with Alexander the Great.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194.
Siege by Severus.
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323.
Siege by Constantine.
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330.
Transformed into Constantinople.
See CONSTANTINOPLE.
{343}
C.
ÇA IRA:
The origin of the cry and the song.
"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in
1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge
reached France, many good friends to America began to think
that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin
never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça
ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will
all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers,
amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words.
They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by
the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution,
were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the
subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn
appeared, had no equal in France."
J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the
U. S., volume 2, page 89.
L. Rosenthal, America and France, page 263.
"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a
street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the
time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."
Century Dictionary.
"The original name of the tune to which the words were written
is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance
that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie
Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."
J. Oxenford, Book of French Songs
(note to "Ça ira").
CAABA AT MECCA, The.
"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by
Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel.
Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it
several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the
Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of
Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia
and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes
gained ground. ... This temple, whose name 'square house'
indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and
of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively
recent times that it had a door with a lock. ... For a long
time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated
black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the
object of Mussulman veneration. ... We have already mentioned
Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba.
This example was soon copied. ... The Caaba thus became a sort
of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child
on her knees, eventually found a place there."
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the
East, book 7, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Muir, Life of Mahomet, chapter 2.
CABAL, The.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
CABALA, The.
"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of
Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at
what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it
comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or
schools, whether on religious or civil points."
H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, volume 2, book 18.
"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and
transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of,
but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound
than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty
of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true,
occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and
of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward
interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and
the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the
most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher
doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala.
And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost
above the comprehension of the wisest. ... In its traditional,
no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala,
ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and
more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches
down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher
Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be
derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even
aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the
Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs
to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity,
became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of
the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first
principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still
more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly
with the Zendavesta ... as to leave no doubt of their kindred
and affiliation."
H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 30.
CABILDO. The.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.
CABINET, The American.
"There is in the government of the United States no such thing
as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the
term, not only because it is current in America to describe
the chief ministers of the President, but also because it
calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists
between the great officers of State in America and the similar
officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only
reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the
President is that contained in the power given him to require
the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the
executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties
of their respective offices.' All these departments have been
created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with
four only, at the head of whom were the following four
officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,
Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a
Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in
1849 a Secretary of the Interior. ... Each receives a salary
of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President,
subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically
never refused), and may be removed by the President alone.
Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be
placed in charge of a department, except that they are
summoned by the President to his private council. None of them
can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution
providing that 'no person holding any office under the United
States shall be a member of either House during his
continuance in office.'"
J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 9.
{344}
"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was
established. ... In 1889 the head of the Department became
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet
officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was
created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate
department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and
therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight
heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.
W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and
Administration of the United States (Johns Hopkins
University Studies, series IX., numbers. 1-2), chapter 10.
CABINET, The English.
"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin
and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an
early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy
Council to which the law assigned many important functions and
duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body
deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by
degrees its character changed. It became too large for
despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often
bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing
was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The
sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for
advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages
and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by
Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not
till after the Restoration that the interior council began to
attract general notice. During many years old fashioned
politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an
unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it
constantly became more and more important. It at length drew
to itself the chief executive power, and has now been
regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of
our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be
altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and
gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the
public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor
has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of
Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly
used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a
whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of
five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the
word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and
Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called
the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous
that it has never since their time been used except as a term
of reproach."
Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2.
"Walpole's work, ... the effect of his policy, when it was
finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a
definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive
government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation
with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and
to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House
of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in
the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William
called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that
the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into
power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists,
the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the
earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we
choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable
system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in
the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike
over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain
that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were
first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet
system received the impression that it bears in our own time.
... Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between
the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the
century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen
Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself
present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates
in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time
of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of
the Cabinet since Anne. ... This vital change was probably due
to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the
language in which its deliberations were carried on. The
withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was
essential to the momentous change which has transferred the
whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a
committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of
Parliament, from among other members. ... The Prime Minister
is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all
its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice,
and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are
counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet
the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies
a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional
and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen
by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is
pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the
acclamation of a party majority. ... The Prime Minister, once
appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to
their respective offices. ... The flexibility of the Cabinet
system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon
himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided
always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In
ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to
do their own work in their own way. ... Just as the Cabinet
has been described as being the regulator of relations between
Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the
regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. ...
Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of
the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his
successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time
earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title,
and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest
instance in which I have found, the head of the government
designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of
Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."
J. Morley, Walpole, chapter 7.
"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy
Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings;
and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the
Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is
legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of
every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while
no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are,
the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these
Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that
while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine
appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by
their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such
responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that,
to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council
has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII.
ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of
persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take
part in the contests of political life."
A. V. Dicey. The Privy Council, page 143.
{345}
CABINET, The Kitchen.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
CABOCHIENS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
CABOT, John and Sebastian.
American Discoveries.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.
CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841.
Occupation by the British.
Successful native rising.
Retreat and destruction of the British army.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880.
Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident.
Second occupation by the English.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
----------CABUL: End----------
CACIQUE.
"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives
of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the
conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild
tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is
the word found."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 210, foot-note.
CADDOAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;
also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CADE'S REBELLION.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.
CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.
This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which
the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the
Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its
dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the
walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the
Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates
and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men,
under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000
strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were
commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The
battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended
in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam,
with 40,000 of his men.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26.
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
CADIZ: Origin.
See UTICA, and GADES.
CADIZ: A. D. 1596.
Taken and sacked by the English and Dutch.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
CADIZ: A. D. 1702.
Abortive English and Dutch expedition against.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
CADIZ: A. D. 1810-1811.
Siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
CADIZ: A. D. 1823.
Siege, bombardment and capture by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
CADMEA (KADMEIA), The.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.
See BŒOTIA.
CADURCI, The.
The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief
place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 17.
CADUSIANS, The.
An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was
on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,--the district
of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name
was "Gaels."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.
CADWALLON, Death of.
See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.
CÆLLAN HILL, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
CAERLAVEROCK, Siege of.
A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of
Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.
CAERLEON.
"Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by
Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the
second legion, which had been so long established at the
Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city
the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened
to Caerleon."
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
CÆSAR, JULIUS, Career and death of.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44;
GAUL: B. C. 58-51;
and BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
CÆSAR, The title.
"Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the
moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated
to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most
familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for
the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to
confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian
dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of
the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession
fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their
own practice in this particular, and applied the name of
Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son
Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him,
and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late
indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still
eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third
century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed
from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and
deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and
perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining
ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken
continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still
retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of
the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to
derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the
Cæsars of Byzantium."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 31.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.
One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor
Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions
were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in
modern Saragossa.
C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 34.
{346}
CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: Origin.
See MAZACA.
CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260.
Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: Massacre of Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: The Church in.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.
A Roman town identified, generally, with modern Chelmsford.
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
CÆSAROMAGUS IN GAUL.
Modern Beauvais.
See BELGÆ.
CÆSARS, The Twelve.
See ROME: A. D. 68-96.
CÆSAR'S TOWER.
See TOWER OF LONDON.
CAFFA.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CAHORS:
Origin.
See CADURCI.
CAHORS: A. D. 1580.
Siege and capture by Henry of Navarre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
CAIRN.
See BARROW.
CAIRO: A. D. 641.
Origin.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
CAIRO: A. D. 967-1171.
Capital of the Fatimite Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.
CAIRO: A. D. 1517.
Capture, sack and massacre by the Ottoman Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
CAIRO: A. D. 1798.
Occupied by the French under Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
CAIRO: A. D. 1800.
Revolt suppressed by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
CAIRO: A. D. 1801-1802.
Surrender to the English.
Restoration to Turkey.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
CAIRO: A. D. 1805-1811.
Massacres of the Mamelukes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883.
Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control.
Occupation by the British.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
----------CAIRO: End----------
CAIROAN.
See KAIRWAN.
CAIUS, called Caligula,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 37-41.
CAKCHIQUELS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES, and MAYAS.
CALABRIA:
Transfer of the name.
"After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the
vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more
ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to
have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 45; note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
CALABRIA: A. D. 1080.
Norman duchy.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.
----------CALABRIA: End----------
CALAIS: A. D. 1346-1347.
Siege and capture by Edward III.
Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English
king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He
built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown
the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and
shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and
hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other
necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by
shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and
angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August,
1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required
that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him,
with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St.
Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the
sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of
Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives.
He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of
fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.
W. Warburton, Edward III., Second Decade, chapter 3.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
CALAIS: A. D. 1348.
The Staple for English trade.
See STAPLE.
CALAIS: A. D. 1558.
Recovery from the English by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CALAIS: A. D. 1564.
Final surrender of English claims.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598.
Surprise and capture by the Spaniards.
Restoration to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
----------CALAIS: End----------
CALATRAVA AND SANTIAGO, Knights of.
"It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the
Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with
interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the
early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of
Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago--or St. James of
Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order
was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St.
Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego
Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms
previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the
cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of
Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been
confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in
1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that
position against the assailants. The proposal was readily
accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so
efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men,
whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few
of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the
order, which took its name from the place, and which in its
religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and
wore the same monastic habit,--a white robe and scapulary. [By
pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the
knights allowed to marry 'once.'--Foot-note.] The other
order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with
their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them,
by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the
Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez--if the 'don' has not been
added to give something like respectability to the origin--was
the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to
assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary
obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic
fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion
the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody
sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol.
These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of
Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."
S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3,
section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.
{347}
In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella
"received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership
was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of
nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava
was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and
since that time the order has gradually merged into a court
institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross
on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed
since 1540."
F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.
CALAURIA,
Confederation of.
A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek
history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens,
Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the
kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point
of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.
E. Curtius, History of Greece, V. 1, book 1, chapter 3.
CALCINATO, Battle of (1706).
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
CALCUTTA: A. D. 1698.
The founding of the city.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
CALCUTTA: A. D. 1756.
Capture by Surajah Dowlah.
The tragedy of the Black Hole.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.
----------CALCUTTA: End----------
CALDERON, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
CALEDONIA, The name.
See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.
CALEDONIA,
Ancient Tribes.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CALEDONIA,
Wars of the Romans.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
----------CALEDONIA: End----------
CALEDONIA SYLVA.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CALEDONII, The.
One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of
Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they
gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of
the island.
W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CALENDAR, The French Republican.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
CALENDAR,
Gregorian.
Gregorian Era.
"This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see
CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more
accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or
tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57
seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian
computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11
minutes, 3 seconds, . . . which, in the course of 130 years,
amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore,
the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell
back a day behind it. . . . In the time of Pope Gregory XIII.,
A. D. 1582, . . . the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the
11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order,
therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the
21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the
15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the
22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583,
which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this
correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated
mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this
error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar
was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three
days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the
assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should
be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first,
second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be
bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth
centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D.
1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common
years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By
this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered
sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and
even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. ... The Gregorian
or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D.
1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of
Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out
of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d
day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next
year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning
January 1, instead of March 25."
W. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, V. 1, book I.
The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates
according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the
reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal,
part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and
Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587;
in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584;
in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700
and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece,
and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.
Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History.
CALENDAR,
Julian.
Julian Era.
"The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or
Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the
Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of
Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445
days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365
days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the
additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends
of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called
Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then
doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number
of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar,
which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in
most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries.
... The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were
eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the
ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th
day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in
March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th
day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of
forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of
January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. ...
Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and
Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the
Roman months bore their present names.
{348}
An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius
Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year
a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days,
8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen
intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year
consequently began three days too late: the calendar was,
therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of
the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and
that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or
A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without
mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian
nations, though about the sixth century they began to date
from the birth of our Saviour."
Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, page 4.
"It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would
have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the
day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion'
[i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was
corrected] was supposed to fall on Dec. 25. But he chose to
begin his new year on the first of January following, because
on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun,
at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means
he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient
Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also
made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."
T. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, volume 1, book 1.
ALSO IN:
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 20.
For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian
calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN
CALENDS.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
CALETI, The.
See BELGÆ.
CALHOUN, John C.,
And the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
CALHOUN, John C.
And the Nullification Movement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
CALIFORNIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND
THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
Origin of the name.
Early Spanish exploration and settlement.
The founding of the Franciscan missions.
"The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the
present limits of the State of California date from the first
foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later
founded north of San Diego were, with the original
establishment itself, for a time known merely by some
collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the
name California, already long since applied to the country of
the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the
new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out
of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at
last came, being applied to our present country during the
whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the
origin of the name California, no serious question remains
that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a
portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed
romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in
1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion.
For, in this romance, the name California was already before
1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the
Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.'
Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered
peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have
been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on
which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper
California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer
Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on
the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. ...
In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D.
1572-1580]. ... It is ... almost perfectly sure that he did
not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort
of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. ... This result of
the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now
fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to
insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The
name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this
coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from
the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast
near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that
neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied
this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown
to Europeans during all this period. ... In 1602-3, Sebastian
Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the
California coast. ... From this voyage a little more knowledge
of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth
geographical researches in the region of California ceased for
over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we
reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The
missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767,
by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the
Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was
attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered
the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide
the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of
supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a
safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. ... Thus began
the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California.
The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one
great disaster occurring,--the destruction of San Diego
Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was
quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was
founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages
and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San
Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of
San Francisco. ... After 1775, the old name began to be
generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the
name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In
1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the
following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and
in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions,
however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in
the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these
to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The
next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."
J. Royce, California, chapter 1, section 2.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 13
(California, volume l).
F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
chapters 5-15.
{349}
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.
"Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about
200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity,
enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable
element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of
California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000
Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California
that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are
conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were
obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived
in California during the period mentioned, and who
participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians
appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their
own government, or, rather, they felt that under the
influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very
distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican
nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this
contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be
performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being
between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the
territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros,
etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and
others, sympathized with the United States, and desired
annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico,
then governor of the territory, and other prominent native
Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul,
who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to
bring the country under English domination. ... This was the
state of affairs for two or three years previous to the
Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities
between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see
MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that
such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout
the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and
stimulated the two rivals--the American and English--in their
efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the
country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont
to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had
passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when,
in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States
marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to
Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to
Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally
overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the
road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his
dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the
papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these
instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been
promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in
California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with
the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur.
Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short
time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at
Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a
party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command,
appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag,
proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to
Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the
two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the
consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected
captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the
manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows
upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes
started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a
fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted
what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being
artistic in their work ... the Mexicans, with their usual
happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera
Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of
the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June,
1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had
emigrated to California the year previous, issued a
proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma.
This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the
existing government, and establish in its place the republican
form. ... General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly
manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid
movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a
meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting
under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country,
appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico.
During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star
floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The
meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have
understood. ... Just as Fremont, with his company, had started
for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive
generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the
astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at
Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised
the American flag and taken possession of the place; also,
that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of
the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San
Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of
Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of
course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag
and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens
volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes.
... Commodore Sloat ... had heard of the commencement of
hostilities on the Rio Grande, ... sailed from Mazatlan for
California, took possession of the country and raised the
American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps
on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too
soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war
Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at
Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take
possession of that portion of the country." In August,
Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific
squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted
bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the
territory. All his available force for land operations was 350
men--sailors and marines.
{350}
But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so
efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop,
that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847.
During all this period the people of the United States were
ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa.
But the action of Commodore Sloat ... and ... Commodore
Stockton ... did but anticipate the wishes of the United
States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched
General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see
NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders
to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the
governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in
California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces,
December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations
in that region ceased."
E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, pages 29-42.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 17
(California, volume 5), chapter 1-16.
J. C. Fremont, Memoirs of my Life, volume 1, chapter 14-15.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848.
Cession to the United States.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.
"In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California,
numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San
Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the
future. Their government held secure possession of the whole
territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it
permanently. ... It so happened that at this time one of the
leading representatives of American interests in California
was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the
place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and
naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent
residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had
settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers,
near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho
became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he
planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get
lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since
there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be
in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W.
Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by
occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full
of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business
sense. ... The place for his mill was in the small valley of
Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles
from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon
without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill
was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race
to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had
been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of
January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its
rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and
picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of
grains of wheat. ... He thought they were gold, and went to
the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine.
At the time, little importance was attached to his statement.
It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall
hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into
the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or
become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and
the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was
gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to
Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful
weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion
was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of
about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian'
and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed
mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the
former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold
mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of
the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. ...
Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with
the cry of 'gold'! ... Nearly all the men hurried off to the
mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe
fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of
themselves. ... 'The reports of the discovery, which began to
reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little
credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of
large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New
York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all
doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful
migration as the world had never seen. In 1849,
25,000--according to one authority 50,000--immigrants went by
land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky
Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the
world. ... The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000;
that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that
of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has
continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is
about $12,000,000."
J. S. Hittell, The Discovery of
Gold in California (Century Magazine, February, 1891).
ALSO IN:
E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age,
or the Discovery of Gold in California.
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapter 2-4.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1850.
Admission to the Union as a free state.
The Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.
The San Francisco Vigilance Committee.
"The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee,
which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856,
has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that
city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of
the origin and subsequent action of that association will be
read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts
of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the
infamous character of many of the public officials, had been
the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but
throughout the State of California. It was evident to the
honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that ... it
would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by
reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from
the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter
were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times,
edited by one James P. Casey.
{351}
The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by
the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th
of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street,
receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and
intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey
surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening
of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which
had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free
riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city,
by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and
determined the organization of another committee for the same
purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and
regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to
sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of
San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were
invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled
themselves in a few days. ... The members of the vigilance
committee were divided into companies of 100, each company
having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent
to the different captains to appear with their companies ready
for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento
Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived,
they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty
picked men were selected as a guard for the executive
committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the
direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had
collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched
through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open
space before the jail. ... The houses opposite the jail were
searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee
wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead
to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in
front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer
was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and
complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had
killed a United States marshal the November previous, was
taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were
escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there
confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King
died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which
the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were
hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in
front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive
committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly
under control, and that there was no danger of any popular
excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the
country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time
managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men
were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco.
Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and
taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined
until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the
country. ... The governor of California at this time was Mr.
J. Neely Johnson. ... The major-general of the second division
of state militia (which included the city and county of San
Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known
in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his
commission in the United States army and had become a partner
in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco.
... Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson ... appealed to
General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to
the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in
command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut
had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for
arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of
war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act
as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor
Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his
request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the
sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William
Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance
committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their
prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to
call out the militia of his division to support that officer.
At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring
the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General
Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service,
and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained
arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized
and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to
arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the
vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by
the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others,
had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general
meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men
were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under
arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order
party, who were collected in force at the different armories.
These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and
delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories
were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power
between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order
and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure
ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who
wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a
butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court.
Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their
position was made more precarious by the very fact of their
having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole
Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and
it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington
to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at
once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way,
placing the United States military force in California at the
disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily
with their work. ... All the important changes which they had
undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would
gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had
it not been for the case of Judge Terry. ... At last the
physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on
the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. ... Having got rid
of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a
close, and on the 18th of August the whole association,
numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal
streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in
Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they
were relieved from duty. ... In the following November there
was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went
off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of
thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was
elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San
Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best
governed cities in the United States."
T. G. Cary, The San Francisco Vigilance Committee
(Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1877).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25.
Gen. W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, chapter 4 (volume 1).
{352}
CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.
The new state constitution.
"Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express
sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in
Pennsylvania. ... Some strong language used at this meeting,
and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men
into forming a sort of committee of public safety. ... The
chief result of the incident was further irritation of the
poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of
them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them.
Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and
members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the
custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and
other organizations, purporting to represent various parties
or sections of a party, and among others a body calling
itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the
Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the
election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his
union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman
by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but
accustomed to include his religion among the established
institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for
industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into
stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have
first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in
speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the
Lyceum of Self Culture. ... Kearney's tongue, loud and
abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San
Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards
the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out
for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and
hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to
gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first
he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great
newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the
Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in
this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns
with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working
men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. ... The
advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and
articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take
it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally
assured by his being, along with several other speakers,
arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of
inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of
Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco
the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution
failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better
class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though
many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a
circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was
organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of
California, with Kearney for its President. ... The Sand Lot
party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here,
as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its
rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised
to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats,
hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus
it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own
at city and State elections. It carried most of the city
offices, and when the question was submitted to the people
whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it
threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. ... Next
came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the
convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The
Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in
the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without
experience or constructive ideas. ... However; the working
men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less
corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many
things and produced that surprising instrument by which
California is now governed. ...
1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of
the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to
carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It
makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator,
and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.
2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to
incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land
equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in
the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an
income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of
everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.
3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State
has power to prevent corporations from conducting their
business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the
State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies,
and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by
law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the
transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books
and accounts of all transportation companies.
4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars
them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public
works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the
legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which
shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of
Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe
these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall
constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the
Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people,
in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. ...
{353}
The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so
many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San
Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the
entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a
small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens
voting. ... The next thing was to choose a legislature to
carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed
in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional
Convention, the results might have been serious. But
fortunately there was a slight reaction. ... A series of
statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the
Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be
contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared
when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills,
particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and
one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot
men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing,
Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did
not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the
legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues,
especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the
candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office
than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the
Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or
training to argue the legal, economical, and political
questions involved in the new Constitution so that the
prominence of these questions threw him into the background.
... Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics,
and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where
he goes or what he does."
J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 90 (volume 2),
and appendix to volume 1 (containing the text of the
Constitution of California).
----------CALIFORNIA: End----------
CALIGULA.
See CAIUS.
CALIPH, The Title.
The title Caliph, or Khalifa, simply signifies in the Arabic
language "Successor." The Caliphs were the successors of
Mahomet.
CALIPHATE, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.
CALIPHS,
The Turkish Sultan becomes successor to the.
See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.
CALISCH, OR KALISCH, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
CALIXTINES, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
CALLAO: Siege, 1825-1826.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
CALLAO: A. D. 1866.
Repulse of the Spanish fleet.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
CALLEVA.
One of the greater towns of Roman Britain, the walls of which,
found at Silchester enclose an area of three miles in circuit.
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
CALLIAS, Peace of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
CALLINICUS, Battle of.
Fought in the wars of the Romans with the Persians, on the
banks of the Euphrates, Easter Eve. A. D. 531. The Romans,
commanded by Belisarius, suffered an apparent defeat, but they
checked an intended advance of the Persians on Antioch.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 19.
CALLISTUS II., Pope, A. D. 1119-1124.
Callistus III., Pope, A. D. 1455-1458.
CALMAR, The Union of.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397, and 1397-1527.
CALPULALPAM, Battle of (1860).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
CALPURNIAN LAW, The.
"In this year, B. C. 149, the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso
Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of annals, proposed
and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the
Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third
Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his
foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation,
there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. ... But
these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the
subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. ... The remedy for
these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of
Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular
criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly
constituted were afterwards established for the trial of
persons charged with other offences. The Lex Calpurnia defined
the offence of Repetundæ, as it was briefly named, to be the
taking of money by irregular means for the use of a governor.
The name Repetundæ was given to this offence, because the
object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make
restitution. ... The court consisted of a presiding judge ...
and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The
number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all
senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of the
judices tried all the cases which came before them during one
year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing
court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which
had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not
know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as
the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to
obtain satisfaction."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 2.
CALUSA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
CALVEN, Battle of (1499).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535;
and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
CAMARCUM.
The ancient name of the town of Cambrai.
CAMARILLA.
A circle of irresponsible chamber
counsellors--courtiers--surrounding a sovereign with
influences superior to those of his responsible ministers.
CAMBALU, OR CAMBALEC.
See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
CAMBAS, OR
CAMPA, OR
CAMPO, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
CAMBORICUM.
A Roman town in Britain.
"Camboricum was without doubt a very important town, which
commanded the southern fens. It had three forts or citadels,
the principal of which occupied the district called the
Castle-end, in the modern town of Cambridge, and appears to
have had a bridge over the Cam, or Granta; of the others, one
stood below the town, at Chesterton, and the other above it,
at Granchester. Numerous roads branched off from this town.
... Bede calls the representative of Camboricum, in his time,
a 'little deserted city,' and tells us how, when the nuns of
Ely wanted a coffin for their saintly abbess, Etheldreda, they
found a beautiful sculptured sarcophagus of white marble
outside the city walls of the Roman town."
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
{354}
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1581.
Unsuccessful siege by the Prince of Parma.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1595-1598.
End of the Principality of governor Balagni.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
Retention under the treaty of Vervins.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1677.
Taken by Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
CAMBRAI: A. D. 1679.
Ceded to France.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
----------CAMBRAI: End----------
CAMBRAI,
The League of.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
CAMBRAI, Peace of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
CAMBRIA.
The early name of Wales.
See KYMRY, and CUMBRIA;
also, BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
CAMBRIDGE,
England, Origin of.
See CAMBORICUM.
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts.
The first settlement.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
CAMBRIDGE, Platform, The:
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
CAMBYSES, OR KAMBYSES,
King of Persia, B. C. 529-522.
CAMDEN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
CAMERONIAN REGIMENT, The.
In 1689, when Claverhouse was raising the Highland clans in
favor of James II., "William Cleland, who had fought with
distinguished bravery at Bothwell, and was one of the few men
whom Claverhouse feared, made an offer to the [Scottish]
Estates to raise a regiment among the Cameronians, under the
colonelcy of the Earl of Angus, and the offer was accepted.
Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment. Its first
lieutenant-colonel was Cleland; its first chaplain was
Shields. Its courage was first tried at Dunkeld, where these
800 Covenanted warriors rolled back the tide of Celtic
invasion; and since that, undegenerate though changed, it has
won trophies in every quarter of the world."
J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 8.
CAMERONIANS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
CAMISARDS, The revolt of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
CAMORRA, OR CAMORRISTI, The.
"Besides the regular authorities known to and avowed by the
law ... there existed under the Bourbon rule at Naples
[overthrown by Garibaldi in 1860] a self-constituted authority
more terrible than either. It was not easy to obtain exact
proof of the operation of this authority, for it was impatient
of question, its vengeance was prompt, and the instrument of
that vengeance was the knife. In speaking of it as one
authority it is possible to err, for different forms or
branches of this secret institution at times revealed their
existence by the orders which they issued. This secret
influence was that of the Camorra, or Camorristi, a sort of
combination of the violence of the middle ages, of the trades
union tyranny of Sheffield, and of the blackmail levy of the
borders. The Camorristi were a body of unknown individuals who
subsisted on the public, especially on the smaller
tradespeople. A man effected a sale of his ware; as the
customer left his shop a man of the people would enter and
demand the tax on the sale for the Camorra. None could escape
from the odious tyranny. It was impalpable to the police. It
did not confine itself to the industry of illicit taxation. It
issued its orders. When the Italian Parliament imposed stamp
duties, that sensibly increased the cost of litigation, that
indispensable luxury of the Neapolitans, the advocates
received letters warning them to cease all practice in the
courts so long as these stamp duties were enforced.
'Otherwise,' continued the mandate, 'we shall take an early
opportunity of arranging your affairs.' Signed by 'the Camorra
of the avvocati.' The arrangement hinted at was to be made by
the knife. ... The Italian government, much to its credit,
made a great onslaught on the Camorristi. Many were arrested,
imprisoned or exiled, some even killed one another in prison.
But the total eradication of so terrible a social vice must be
[published in 1867] a work of great difficulty, perseverance
and time."
The Trinity of Italy; by an English Civilian, page 70.
CAMP OF REFUGE AT ELY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.
CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.
"'The name of Campania,' says Pelligrini, 'which was first
applied to the territory of Capua alone, extended itself by
successive re-arrangements of the Italian provinces over a
great part of Central Italy, and then gradually shrank back
again into its birth-place, and at last became restricted to
the limits of one city only, Naples, and that one of the least
importance in Italy. What naturally followed was the total
disuse of the name.' ... The term Campania, therefore, became
obsolete except in the writings of a few mediaeval authors,
whose statements created some confusion by their ignorance of
the different senses in which it had at different times been
used. An impression seems, however, to have prevailed that the
district of Capua had been so named on account of its flat and
fertile nature, and hence every similar tract of plain country
came to be called a campagna in the Italian language. The
exact time when the name, which had thus become a mere
appellative, was applied to the Roman Campagna is not
accurately ascertained. ... It will be seen that the term
Roman Campagna is not a geographical definition of any
district or province with clearly fixed limits, but that it is
a name loosely employed in speaking of the tract which lies
round the city of Rome."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14, note at end.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.
CAMPALDINO, Battle of.
See FLORENCE; A. D. 1289..
CAMPANIANS, The.
See SABINES;
also, SAMNITES.
CAMPBELL, Sir Colin (Lord Clyde),
The Indian Campaign of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.
{355}
CAMPBELL'S STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CAMPERDOWN, Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
CAMPO-FORMIO, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
CAMPO SANTO, Battle of (1743).
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
CAMPO-TENESE, Battle of (1806).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
CAMPUS MARTIUS AT ROME, The.
"The history of the Campus Martius presents us with a series
of striking contrasts. It has been covered in successive ages,
first by the cornfields of the Tarquinian dynasty, then by the
parade ground of the great military republic, next by a forest
of marble colonnades and porticoes, and, lastly, by a confused
mass of mean and filthy streets, clustering round vast
mansions, and innumerable churches of every size and
description. ... During the time of the Republic, the whole
Campus seems to have been considered state property and was
used as a military and athletic exercise ground and a place of
meeting for the comitia centuriata."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 13, part 1.
"We have hitherto employed this name to designate the whole of
the meadow land bounded by the Tiber on one side, and on the
other by the Collis Hortulorum, the Quirinal and the
Capitoline. ... But the Campus Martius, strictly speaking, was
that portion only of the flat ground which lies in the angle
formed by the bend of the stream. According to the narrative
of Livy, it was the property of the Tarquins, and upon their
expulsion was confiscated, and then consecrated to Mars; but
Dionysius asserts that it had been previously set apart to the
god and sacrilegiously appropriated by the tyrant. ... During
the republic the Campus Martius was employed specially for two
purposes. (1.) As a place for holding the constitutional
assemblies (comitia) especially the Comitia Centuriata, and
also for ordinary public meetings (conciones). (2.) For
gymnastic and warlike sports. For seven centuries it remained
almost entirely open. ... In the Comitia, the citizens, when
their votes were taken, passed into enclosures termed septa,
or ovilia, which were, for a long period, temporary wooden
erections."
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 1.
CAMULODUNUM.
See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
CAMUNI, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
CANAAN.
CANAANITES.
"Canaan signifies 'the lowlands,' and was primarily the name
of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were
built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were
inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be
extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as
Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of
the Philistines."
A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 2.
See PHŒNICIANS: ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY;
Also,
JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,
and HAMITES.
----------CANAAN: End----------
CANADA.
(NEW FRANCE.)
CANADA:
Names.
"The year after the failure of Verrazano's last enterprise,
1525, Stefano Gomez sailed from Spain for Cuba and Florida;
thence he steered northward in search of the long hoped-for
passage to India, till he reached Cape Race, on the
southeastern extremity of Newfoundland. The further details of
his voyage remain unknown, but there is reason to suppose that
he entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence and traded upon its
shores. An ancient Castilian tradition existed that the
Spaniards visited these coasts before the French, and having
perceived no appearance of mines or riches, they exclaimed
frequently 'Aca nada' [signifying 'here is nothing']; the
natives caught up the sound, and when other Europeans arrived,
repeated it to them. The strangers concluded that these words
were a designation, and from that time this magnificent
country bore the name of Canada. ... Father Hennepin asserts
that the Spaniards were the first discoverers of Canada, and
that, finding nothing there to gratify their extensive desires
for gold, they bestowed upon it the appellation of Capo di
Nada, 'Cape Nothing,' whence by corruption its present name.
... La Potherie gives the same derivation. . . . This
derivation would reconcile the different assertions of the
early discoverers, some of whom give the name of Canada to the
whole valley of the St. Lawrence; others, equally worthy of
credit, confine it to a small district in the neighbourhood of
Stadacona (now Quebec). ... Duponceau, in the Transactions of
the [American] Philosophical Society, of Philadelphia, founds
his conjecture of the Indian origin of the name of Canada upon
the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew
into the Mohawk tongue, made by Brandt, the Indian chief, the
word Canada is always used to signify a village. The mistake
of the early discoverers, in taking the name of a part for
that of the whole, is very pardonable in persons ignorant of
the Indian language. ... The natural conclusion ... is, that
the word Canada was a mere local appellation, without
reference to the country; that each tribe had their own
Canada, or collection of huts, which shifted its position
according to their migrations."
E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.
"Canada was the name which Cartier found attached to the land
and there is no evidence that he attempted to displace it. ...
Nor did Roberval attempt to name the country, while the
commission given him by the king does not associate the name
of Francis or any new name therewith. ... There seems to have
been a belief in New England, at a later day, that Canada was
derived from William and Emery de Caen (Cane, as the English
spelled it), who were in New France in 1621, and later. Cf.
Morton's 'New English Canaan,' Adam's edition, page 235, and
Josselyn's 'Rarities,' page 5; also, J. Reade, in his history of
geographical names in Canada, printed in New Dominion Monthly,
xi. 344."
B. F. De Costa, Jacques Cartier and his Successors
(Narrative and Crit. History of America, volume 4, chapter 2),
and Editor's foot-note.
{356}
"Cartier calls the St. Lawrence the 'River of Hochelaga,' or
'the great river of Canada.' He confines the name of Canada to
a district extending from the Isle aux Coudres in the St.
Lawrence to a point at some distance above the site of Quebec.
The country below, he adds, was called by the Indians
Saguenay, and that above, Hochelaga. In the map of Gerard
Mercator (1569) the name Canada is given to a town, with an
adjacent district, on the river Stadin (St. Charles).
Lescarbot, a later writer, insists that the country on both
sides of the St. Lawrence, from Hochelaga to its mouth, bore
the name of Canada. In the second map of Ortelius, published
about the year 1572; New France, Nova Francia is thus
divided:--'Canada,' a district on the St. Lawrence above the
River Saguenay; 'Chilaga' (Hochelaga), the angle between the
Ottawa and the St. Lawrence; 'Saguenai,' a district below the
river of that name; 'Moscosa,' south of the St. Lawrence and
east of the River Richelieu; 'Avacal,' west and south of
Moscosa; 'Norumbega,' Maine and New Brunswick; 'Apalachen,'
Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.; 'Terra Corterealis,' Labrador;
'Florida,' Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Mercator confines
the name of New France to districts bordering on the St.
Lawrence. Others give it a much broader application. The use
of this name, or the nearly allied names of Francisca and La
Francisane, dates back, to say the least, as far as 1525, and
the Dutch geographers are especially free in their use of it,
out of spite to the Spaniards. The derivation of the name of
Canada has been a point of discussion. It is, without doubt,
not Spanish, but Indian. ... Lescarbot affirms that Canada is
simply an Indian proper name, of which it is vain to seek a
meaning. Belleforest also calls it an Indian word, but
translates it 'Terre,' as does also Thevet."
F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 1, foot-note.
CANADA:
The Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
HURONS; OJIBWAYS; SIOUAN FAMILY;
ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, AND ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
CANADA: A. D. 1497-1498.
Coast discoveries of the Cabots.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497 and 1498.
CANADA: A. D. 1500.
Cortereal on the coast.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
CANADA: A. D. 1501-1504.
Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
CANADA: A. D. 1524.
The coasting voyage of Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
CANADA: A. D. 1534-1535.
Possession taken by Jacques Cartier for the King of France.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
CANADA: A. D. 1541-1603.
Jacques Cartier's last undertaking.
Unsuccessful French attempts at Colonization.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
The Beginning of Champlain's Career in the New World.
Colonization at Port Royal.
Exploration of the New England coast.
In Pontgravé's expedition of 1603 to New France [see AMERICA:
A. D. 1541-1603], "Samuel de Champlain, a captain in the
navy, accepted a command .... at the request of De Chatte [or
De Chastes]; he was a native of Saintonge, and had lately
returned to France from the West Indies, where he had gained a
high name for boldness and skill. Under the direction of this
wise and energetic man the first successful efforts were made
to found a permanent settlement in the magnificent province of
Canada, and the stain of the errors and disasters of more than
seventy years was at length wiped away. Pontgravé and
Champlain sailed for the St. Lawrence in 1603," explored it as
far as the rapids of St. Louis, and then returned to France.
They found that the patron of their undertaking, De Chastes,
was dead. "Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, had succeeded to
the powers and privileges of the deceased, with even a more
extensive commission. De Monts was a Calvinist, and had
obtained from the king the freedom of religious faith for
himself and his followers in America, but under the engagement
that the Roman Catholic worship should be established among
the natives. ... The trading company established by De Chatte
was continued and increased by his successor. With this
additional aid De Monts was enabled to fit out a more complete
armament than had ever hitherto been engaged in Canadian
commerce. He sailed from Havre on the 7th of March, 1604, with
four vessels. Of these, two under his immediate command were
destined for Acadia. Champlain, Poutrincourt, and many other
volunteers, embarked their fortunes with him, purposing to
cast their future lot in the New World. A third vessel was
dispatched under Pontgravé to the Strait of Canso, to protect
the exclusive trading privileges of the company. The fourth
steered for Tadoussac, to barter for the rich furs brought by
the Indian hunters from the dreary wilds of the Saguenay. On
the 6th of May De Monts reached a harbor on the coast of
Acadia;" but, for some reason not to be understood, his
projected colony was quartered on the little islet of St.
Croix, near the mouth of the river of that name, which became
subsequently the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick.
Meantime, the fine harbor, now Annapolis, then named Port
Royal, had been discovered, and was granted, with a large
surrounding territory, by De Monts to De Poutrincourt, who
proposed to settle upon it as its feudal proprietor and lord.
The colony at St. Croix having been housed and put in order,
De Poutrincourt sailed for France, intending to bring his
family and establish himself at Port Royal. De Monts,
Champlain, and those who remained, suffered a winter of
terrible hardships, and thirty-five died before spring. De
Monts now resolved to seek a better site for his infant
settlement, and, finding no other situation so good he resumed
possession of that most desirable Port Royal which he had
granted away to Poutrincourt and removed his colony thither.
Champlain, meanwhile, in the summer of 1605, had explored the
coast southward far down the future home of the English
Puritans, looking into Massachusetts Bay, taking shelter in
Plymouth harbor and naming it Port St. Louis, doubling Cape
Cod (which he called Cap Blanc), turning back at Nausett
Harbor, and gaining on the whole a remarkable knowledge of the
country and its coast. Soon after Champlain's return from this
coasting voyage, De Monts was called home to France, by news
of machinations that were threatening to extinguish his
patent, and Pontgravé was left in command of the colony at
Port Royal.
E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 3.
{357}
In De Monts' petition to the king for leave to colonize Acadia
that region was defined "as extending from the 40th to the
46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond
Montreal."
F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
E. F. Slafter, Memoir preface to "Voyages of Samuel de
Champlain" (Prince Society, 1880), chapter 1-5.
CANADA: A. D. 1606-1608.
The fortunes of the Acadian colony.
"De Monts found his pathway in France surrounded with
difficulties. The Rochelle merchants who were partners in the
enterprise desired a return for their investments. The Baron
de Poutrincourt, who was still possessed with the desire to
make the New World his home, proved of assistance to De Monts.
De Poutrincourt returned to Acadia and encouraged the
colonists, who were on the verge of deserting Port Royal. With
De Poutrincourt emigrated at this time a Parisian advocate,
named Mark Lescarbot, who was of great service to the colony.
During the absence of De Poutrincourt on an exploring
expedition down the coast, Lescarbot drained and repaired the
colonists' fort, and made a number of administrative changes,
much improving the condition of the settlers. The following
winter was one of comfort, indeed of enjoyment. ... In May,
however, the sad news reached the colony that the company of
the merchants on whom it depended had been broken up. Their
dependence being gone, on the 30th of July most of the
colonists left Acadia for France in vessels sent out for them.
For two years the empty buildings of Port Royal stood, a
melancholy sight, with not a white person in them, but under
the safe protection of Memberton, the Micmak chief, who proved
a trusty friend to the French. The opposition to the company
of Rochelle arose from various causes. In addition to its
financial difficulties the fact of De Monts being a Protestant
was seized on as the reason why nothing was being done in the
colony to christianize the Indians. Accordingly when De Monts,
fired with a new scheme for exploring the northwest passage,
turned over the management of Acadian affairs to De
Poutrincourt, who was a sincere Catholic, some of the
difficulties disappeared. It was not, however, till two years
later that arrangements were made for a new Acadian
expedition."
G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, chapter 4,
section 1.
ALSO IN: J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 4.
CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.
Champlain's third and fourth expeditions.
His settlement at Quebec, discovery of Lake Champlain, and
first wars with the Iroquois.
"De Monts in no way lost heart, and he resolved to continue in
the career of exploration for settlement. A new, expedition
was determined on, and De Monts selected the Saint Lawrence as
the spot where the effort should be made. Champlain counselled
the change. In Nova Scotia and on the coast of New Brunswick and
Maine he had been struck by the number of ports affording
protection to vessels from sea, and by the small number of
Indians whom he had met. In Nova Scotia he would be exposed to
rival attempts at settlement, and at the same time he could
not see the possibility of obtaining Indian allies. In Canada
the full control would remain with those who first made a
settlement on the Saint Lawrence, and Champlain counted the
native tribes as powerful instruments in carrying out his
policy. We have the key here to his conduct in assisting the
Hurons in their wars. .... In 1608 Champlain started for the
St. Lawrence. Pontgravé was with the expedition. A settlement
was made at Quebec, as the most suitable place. Some ground
was cleared, buildings were commenced, when a conspiracy was
discovered. The ringleader was hanged and three of those
actively implicated were sent back to France with Pontgravé on
his return in the autumn. Matters now went peaceably on. The
summer was passed in completing the 'Abitation de Quebec,' of
which Champlain has left us a sketch. It was situated in the
present Lower Town on the river bank, in the corner where
Notre Dame Street meets Sous le Fort Street. It was here
Champlain laid the foundation for the future city. Winter
came, the scurvy carrying off twenty of their number. ... In
June, Des Marais, Pontgravé's son-in-law, arrived, telling him
that Pontgravé was at Tadousac. Champlain proceeded thither.
The question had then to be discussed, what policy should be
followed with the Indians? Should they be aided by what force
Champlain could command, in the expedition which they had
resolved to make against the Iroquois? It is plain that no
advance in discovery could have been made without their
assistance, and that this assistance could only have been
obtained by rendering them service. ... With the view of
making explorations beyond the points then known by Europeans,
Champlain in the middle of June ascended the St. Lawrence.
About a league and a half west of the river Saint Anne, they
were joined by a party of Algonquins who were to form a part
of the expedition. Champlain tells us of their mortal feud
with the Iroquois, a proof that in no way he created it. They
all returned to Quebec, where there was festivity for some
days. It was brought to a close and the war parties started;
Champlain with nine men, Des Marais and a pilot, joined it
[them?]. With his Indian allies he ascended the Richelieu and
reached Lake Champlain, the first white man who saw its
waters: subsequently for 165 years to be the scene of contest
between the Indian and white man, the French and English, the
revolted Colonies and the Mother Country. ... The advance up
Lake Champlain was made only by night. They reached Crown
Point. They were then in the Iroquois domain; very shortly
they knew of the presence of the enemy." On the 30th of July
the invaders fought a battle with the Iroquois, who fled in
terror before the arquebuse of Champlain, which killed two of
their chiefs and wounded a third. Soon after his return to
Quebec from this expedition--the beginning of the long war of
the French with the Iroquois--Champlain was summoned to
France. The patent of De Monts had been revoked and he could
not obtain its renewal. "Nevertheless, De Monts, with his
associates decided to continue their efforts, and, in March,
1610, Champlain again started for Canada." After reaching
Quebec his stay this time was short. He joined his Indian
allies in another expedition of war, and helped them to win
another victory over the Iroquois, at a place on the
Richelieu, one league above Sorel. On returning he got news of
the assassination of Henry IV. and started at once for France.
{358}
"The death of Henry IV. exercised great influence on the
fortunes of Canada. He had personally taken interest in
Champlain's voyages, and his energetic mind was well qualified
to direct the fortunes of a growing colony. Louis XIII. was
not then ten years old. Mary of Medecis was under the control
of her favourites, Leonora Galigai, and her husband, Concino
Concini. Richelieu had not then appeared on the scene. ... The
Jesuits were becoming all-powerful at Court. ... France was
unsettled and disordered. The Protestants, not without
provocation, were acting with passion and without judgment.
The assassination of the King had alarmed them. The whole
kingdom was threatened with convulsion and anarchy, and Canada
was to pass out of the notice of those in power: and, in the
sense of giving aid, half a century was to elapse before the
French Government could comprehend the duty of taking part in
the defence of the country, and of protecting the persons of
those living in New France. The ground was to be regarded
simply as a field for the active trader, side by side with the
devoted missionary. Thus the Government fell virtually under
the control of the Jesuits, who, impatient of contra aimed
only at the establishment of their authority, which was to
bring the colony to the verge of destruction." Champlain
returned to his colony in the spring of 1611, facing its
prospects with such courage as he found in his own stout
heart.
W. Kingsford, History of Canada,
book 1, chapters 3, 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
E. B. O'Callaghan, editor., Doc. History of New York,
volume 3, pages 1-9.
CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.
The Acadian colony revived, but destroyed by the English of
Virginia.
Port Royal was left uninhabited till 1610, when Poutrincourt
returned at the instance of the king to make the new
settlement a central station for the conversion of the
Indians,--a work which made some Jesuit missionaries prominent
in the history of the New World. His son followed in 1611,
with fathers Pierre Biard, and Enemond Masse. Madame la
Marquise de Guercheville, a pious Catholic, to whom De Monts
had ceded his title to Acadia, and to whom afterwards the
French king granted the whole territory now covered by the
United States, was the chief patroness of these voyages.
Desiring to make another settlement, she despatched a vessel
in 1613 with two more Jesuits, father Quentin and Gilbert Du
Thet, and forty-eight men under La Saussaye. "When they
arrived at Port Royal, they only found five persons--fathers
Biard and Masse, their servant, the apothecary Hébert, and
another. All the rest were absent, either hunting or trading.
They showed the Queen's letter to Hébert, who represented
Biencourt in his absence, and taking the two Jesuits, with
their servant and luggage aboard, again set sail. It was their
intention to establish the colony at Pentagoet, which father
Biard had visited the year previous, but when off Grand Manan
a thick fog came on, which lasted for two days, and when it
became clear, they put into a harbor on the eastern side of
Mount Desert Island, in Maine. The harbor was deep, secure and
commodious, and they judged this would be a favorable site for
the colony, and named the place St. Sauveur. ... La Saussaye
was advised by the principal colonists to erect a sufficient
fortification before commencing to cultivate the soil, but he
disregarded this advice, and nothing was completed in the way
of defence, except the raising of a small palisaded structure,
when a storm burst upon the colony, which was little expected
by its founders. In 1607 a company of London merchants had
founded a colony on the James River, in Virginia, where, after
suffering greatly from the insalubrity of the climate and want
of provisions, they had attained a considerable degree of
property. In 1613 they sent a fleet of eleven vessels to fish
on the coast of Acadia, convoyed by an armed vessel under the
command of Captain Samuel Argal, who had been connected with
the colony since 1609. Argal was one of those adventurers
formed in the school of Drake, who made a trade of piracy, but
confined themselves to the robbery of those who were so
unfortunate as not to be their own countrymen. ... When Argal
arrived at Mount Desert, he was told by the Indians that the
French were there in the harbor with a vessel. Learning that
they were not very numerous, he at once resolved to attack
them. All the French were ashore when Argal approached, except
ten men, most of whom were unacquainted with the working of a
ship. Argal attacked the French with musketry, and at the
second discharge Gilbert Du Thet fell hack, mortally wounded;
four others were severely injured, and two young men, named
Lemoine and Neveau, jumped overboard and were drowned. Having
taken possession of the vessel, Argal went ashore and informed
La Saussaye that the place where they were was English
territory, and included in the charter of Virginia, and that
they must remove; but, if they could prove to him that they
were there under a commission from the crown of France, he
would treat them tenderly. He then asked La Saussaye to show
him his commission; but, as Argal, with unparalleled
indecency, had abstracted it from his chest while the vessel
was being plundered by his men, the unhappy governor was of
course unable to produce it. Argal then assumed a very lofty
tone. ... When Argal arrived in Virginia, he found that his
perfidious theft of the French governor's commission was
likely to cause his prisoners to be treated as pirates. They
were put into prison and in a fair way of being executed, in
spite of Argal's remonstrances, until struck with shame and
remorse, he produced the commission which he had so
dishonestly filched from them, and the prisoners were set
free. But the production of this document, while it saved the
lives of one set of Frenchmen, brought ruin upon all the
others who remained in Acadia. The Virginia colonists ...
resolved to send Argal to destroy all the French settlements
in Acadia, and erase all traces of their power. ... The only
excuse offered for this piratical outrage of Argal--which was
committed during a period of profound peace--was the claim
which was made by England to the whole continent of North
America, founded on the discoveries of the Cabots more than a
century before. That claim might, perhaps, have been of some
value if followed by immediate occupancy, as was the case with
the Spaniards in the South, but that not having been done, and
the French colony being the oldest, it was entitled to, at
least, as much consideration as that of Virginia. Singularly
enough, this act produced no remonstrance from France."
J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the U. S.,
volume 1, chapter 12.
{359}
CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.
The founding of Montreal.
Champlain's invasion of the Iroquois in New York.
"In 1611 Champlain again returned to America ... and on the
28th of May proceeded in search of his allies, whom he was to
meet by appointment. Not finding them he employed his time in
choosing a site for a new settlement, higher up the river than
Quebec. After a careful survey, he fixed upon an eligible spot
in the vicinity of Mont Royal. His choice has been amply
justified by the great prosperity to which this place, under
the name of Montreal, has subsequently risen. Having cleared a
considerable space of ground, he fenced it in by an earthen
ditch and planted grain in the enclosure. At length, on the
13th of June, three weeks after the time appointed, a party of
his Indian friends appeared. ... As an evidence of their good
will they imparted much valuable information respecting the
geography of this continent, with which they seemed to be
tolerably well acquainted as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.
They readily agreed to his proposal to return shortly with 40
or 50 of his people to prosecute discoveries and form
settlements in their country if he thought proper. They even
made a request that a French youth should accompany them, and
make observations upon their territory and tribe. Champlain
again returned to France, with a view of making arrangements
for more extensive operations; but this object was now of very
difficult accomplishment. De Monts, who had been appointed
governor of Saintonge, was no longer inclined to take the lead
in measures of this kind, and excused himself from going to
court by stating the urgency of his own affairs. He therefore
committed the whole conduct of the settlement to Champlain,
advising him, at the same time, to seek some powerful
protector, whose influence would overcome any opposition which
might be made to his plans. The latter was so fortunate as to
win over, almost immediately, the Count de Soissons to aid him
in his designs. This nobleman obtained the title of
lieutenant-general of New France; and, by a formal agreement,
transferred to Champlain all the functions of that high
office. The Count died soon after, but Champlain found a still
more influential friend in the Prince of Conde, who succeeded
to all the privileges of the deceased, and transferred them to
him in a manner equally ample. These privileges, including a
monopoly of the fur trade, gave great dissatisfaction to the
merchants; but Champlain endeavored to remove their principal
objection, by permitting as many of them as chose to accompany
him to the New World, and to engage in this traffic. In
consequence of this permission, three merchants from Normandy,
one from Rochelle, and one from St. Malo, accompanied him.
They were allowed the privileges of a free trade on
contributing six men each to assist in projects of discovery,
and giving one-twentieth of their profits towards defraying
the expenses of the settlement. In the beginning of March
[1613] the expedition sailed from Harfleur, and on the 7th of
May arrived at Quebec. Champlain now engaged in a new
project." His new project was a voyage of exploration up the
Ottawa River, which he accomplished with great difficulty,
through the aid of his Indian allies, but from which he
returned disappointed in the hope he had entertained of
discovering the northern sea and a way to India thereby. The
next summer found Champlain again in France, where "matters
still continued favorable for the colony. The Prince of Conde
retained his influence at Court, and no difficulty was
consequently found in equipping a small fleet, to carry out
settlers and supplies from Rouen and St. Malo. On board of
this fleet came four fathers of the order of the Recollets,
whose benevolence induced them to desire the conversion of the
Indians to Christianity. These were the first priests who
settled in Canada. Champlain arrived safely, on the 25th of
May, at Tadoussac, whence he immediately pushed forward to
Quebec, and subsequently to the usual place of Indian
rendezvous, at the Lachine Rapids. Here he found his Algonquin
and Huron allies full of projects of war against the Iroquois,
whom they now proposed to assail among the lakes to the
westward, with a force of 2,000 fighting men."
J. MacMullen, History of Canada, chapter 1
"Champlain found the Hurons and their allies preparing for an
expedition against their ancient enemies, the Iroquois.
Anxious to reconnoitre the hostile territory, and also to
secure the friendship of the Canadian savages, the gallant
Frenchman resolved to accompany their warriors. After visiting
the tribes at the head waters of the Ottawa, and discovering
Lake Huron [at Georgian Bay], which, because of its 'great
extent,' he named 'La Mer Douce,' Champlain, attended by an
armed party of ten Frenchmen, accordingly set out toward the
south, with his Indian allies. Enraptured with the 'very
beautiful and pleasant country' through which they passed, and
amusing themselves with fishing and hunting, as they descended
the chain of 'Shallow Lakes,' which discharge their waters
through the River Trent, the expedition reached the banks of
Lake Ontario. Crossing the end of the lake, 'at the outlet of
the great River of Saint Lawrence,' and passing by many
beautiful islands on the way, the invaders followed the
eastern shore of Ontario for fourteen leagues, toward their
enemy's country. ... Leaving the shores of the lake, the
invaders continued their route inland to the southward, for 25
or 30 leagues." After a journey of five days, "the expedition
arrived before the fortified village of the Iroquois, on the
northern bank of the Onondaga Lake, near the site of the
present town of Liverpool. The village was inclosed by four
rows of palisades, made of large pieces of timber closely
interlaced. The stockade was 30 feet high, with galleries
running around like a parapet." In the siege which followed
the Iroquois were dismayed by the firearms of Champlain and
his men, and by the operation of a moveable tower with which
he advanced to their stockade and set fire to it. But his
Indian allies proved incapable of acting in any rational or
efficient way, or to submit to the least direction, and the
attack was abortive. After a few days the invading force
retreated, carrying Champlain with them and forcing him to
remain in the Huron country until the following spring (1616),
when he made his way back to Montreal.
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 3.
{360}
The above account, which fixes on Onondaga Lake the site of
the Iroquois fort to which Champlain penetrated, does not
agree with the views of Parkman, O'Callaghan, and some other
historians, who trace Champlain's route farther westward in
New York; but it accepts the conclusions reached by O. H.
Marshall, J. V. H. Clark, and other careful students of the
question. Mr. MacMullen, in the "History of Canada" quoted
above, finds an extraordinary route for the expedition via
Lakes Huron and St. Clair, to the vicinity of Detroit.
J. V. H. Clark, History of Onondaga.
ALSO IN:
O. H. Marshall, Champlain's Expedition against the
Onondagas.--Champlain's Voyages (Prince Society). 1880.
E. B. O'Callaghan, editor, Doc. History of New York,
volume 3, pages 10-24.
CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
Champlain and the fur traders.
The first Jesuit mission.
Creation of the Company of the Hundred Associates.
"The exploration in the distant Indian territories which we
have just described in the preceding pages was the last made
by Champlain. He had plans for the survey of other regions yet
unexplored, but the favorable opportunity did not occur.
Henceforth he directed his attention more exclusively than he
had hitherto done to the enlargement and strengthening of his
colonial plantation, without such success, we regret to say,
as his zeal, devotion and labors fitly deserved. The obstacles
that lay in his way were insurmountable. The establishment or
factory, we can hardly call it a plantation, at Quebec, was
the creature of a company of merchants. They had invested
considerable sums in shipping, buildings, and in the
employment of men, in order to carry on a trade in furs and
peltry with the Indians, and they naturally desired
remunerative returns. This was the limit of their purpose in
making the investment. ... Under these circumstances,
Champlain struggled on for years against a current which he
could barely direct, but by no means control. ... He succeeded
at length in extorting from the company a promise to enlarge
the establishment to 80 persons, with suitable equipments,
farming implements, all kinds of seeds, and domestic animals,
including cattle and sheep. But when the time came, this
promise was not fulfilled. Differences, bickerings and feuds
sprang up in the company. Some wanted one thing, and some
wanted another. The Catholics wished to extend the faith of
their church into the wilds of Canada, while the Huguenots
desired to prevent it, or at least not to promote it by their
own contributions. The company, inspired by avarice and a
desire to restrict the establishment to a mere trading post,
raised an issue to discredit Champlain. It was gravely
proposed that he should devote himself exclusively to
exploration, and that the government and trade should
henceforth be under the direction and control of Pont Gravé.
But Champlain ... obtained a decree ordering that he should
have the command at Quebec, and at all other settlements in
New France, and that the company should abstain from any
interference with him in the discharge of the duties of his
office." In 1620 the Prince de Condé sold his viceroyalty to
the Duke de Montmorency, then high-admiral of France, who
commissioned Champlain anew, as his lieutenant, and supported
him vigorously. Champlain had made voyages to Canada in 1617
and 1618, and now, in 1620, he proceeded to his post again. At
Quebec he began immediately the building of a fort, which he
called fort St. Louis. The company of associates opposed this
work, and so provoked the Duke of Montmorency by their conduct
that "in the spring of 1621, he summarily dissolved the
association of merchants, which he denominated the 'Company of
Rouen and St. Malo,' and established another in its place. He
continued Champlain in the office of lieutenant, but committed
all matters relating to trade to William de Caen, a merchant
of high standing, and to Émeric de Caen, the nephew of the
former, a good naval captain." In the course of the following
year, however, the new and the old trading companies were
consolidated in one. "Champlain remained at Quebec four years
before again returning to France. His time was divided between
many local enterprises of great importance. His special
attention was given to advancing the work on the unfinished
fort, in order to provide against incursions of the hostile
Iroquois, who at one time approached the very walls of Quebec,
and attacked unsuccessfully the guarded house of the
Recollects on the St. Charles." In the summer of 1624
Champlain returned again to France, where the Duke de
Montmorency was just selling, or had sold, his viceroyalty to
the Duke de Ventadour. "This nobleman, of a deeply religious
cast of mind, had taken holy orders, and his chief purpose in
obtaining the viceroyalty was to encourage the planting of
Catholic missions in New France. As his spiritual directors
were Jesuits, he naturally committed the work to them. Three
fathers and two lay brothers of this order were sent to Canada
in 1625, and others subsequently joined them. ... Champlain
was reappointed lieutenant, but remained in France two years."
Returning to Quebec in July, 1626, he found, as usual, that
everything but trade had suffered neglect in his absence. Nor
was he able, during the following year, to improve much the
prospects of the colony. As a colony, "it had never prospered.
The average number composing it had not exceeded about 50
persons. At this time it may have been somewhat more, but did
not reach a hundred. A single family only appears to have
subsisted by the cultivation of the soil. The rest were
sustained by supplies sent from France. ... The company as a
mere trading association, was doubtless successful. ... The
large dividends that they were able to make, intimated by
Champlain to be not far from forty per centum yearly, were, of
course, highly satisfactory to the company. ... Nearly twenty
years had elapsed since the founding of Quebec, and it still
possessed only the character of a trading post, and not that
of a colonial plantation. This progress was satisfactory
neither to Champlain, to the Viceroy, nor to the Council of
State. In the view of these several interested parties, the
time had come for a radical change in the organization of the
company. Cardinal de Richelieu had risen by his extraordinary
ability as a statesman, a short time anterior to this, into
supreme authority. ... He lost no time in organizing measures.
... The company of merchants whose finances had been so
skilfully managed by the Caens was by him at once dissolved. A
new one was formed, denominated 'La Compagnie de la
Nouvelle-France,' consisting of a hundred or more members, and
commonly known as the Company of the Hundred Associates. It
was under the control and management of Richelieu himself.
{361}
Its members were largely gentlemen in official positions. ...
Its authority extended over the whole domain of New France and
Florida. ... It entered into an obligation ... within the
space of 15 years to transport 4,000 colonists to New France.
... The organization of the company ... was ratified by the
Council of State on the 6th of May, 1628."
E. F. Slafter, Memoir of Champlain (Voyages:
Prince Society, 1880, volume 1), chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
Père Charlevoix, History of New France, trans.
by J. G. Shea, book 4 (volume 2).
CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
Conquest and brief occupation by the English.
Restoration to France.
"The first care of the new Company was to succor Quebec, whose
inmates were on the verge of starvation. Four armed vessels,
with a fleet of transports commanded by Roquemont, one of the
associates, sailed from Dieppe with colonists and supplies in
April, 1628; but nearly at the same time another squadron,
destined also for Quebec, was sailing from an English port.
War had at length broken out in France. The Huguenot revolt
had come to a head. Rochelle was in arms against the king; and
Richelieu, with his royal ward, was beleaguering it with the
whole strength of the kingdom. Charles I. of England, urged by
the heated passions of Buckingham, had declared himself for
the rebels, and sent a fleet to their aid. ... The attempts of
Sir William Alexander to colonize Acadia had of late turned
attention in England towards the New World; and, on the
breaking out of the war, an expedition was set on foot, under
the auspices of that singular personage, to seize on the
French possessions in North America. It was a private
enterprise, undertaken by London merchants, prominent among
whom was Gervase Kirke, an Englishman of Derbyshire, who had
long lived at Dieppe, and had there married a Frenchwoman.
Gervase Kirke and his associates fitted out three small armed
ships, commanded respectively by his sons David, Lewis and
Thomas. Letters of marque were obtained from the king, and the
adventurers were authorized to drive out the French from
Acadia and Canada. Many Huguenot refugees were among the
crews. Having been expelled from New France as settlers, the
persecuted sect were returning as enemies." The Kirkes reached
the St. Lawrence in advance of Roquemont's supply ships,
intercepted the latter and captured or sank the whole. They
then sailed back to England with their spoils, and it was not
until the following summer that they returned to complete
their conquest. Meantime, the small garrison and population at
Quebec were reduced to starvation, and were subsisting on
acorns and roots when, in July 1629, Admiral David Kirke, with
his three ships, appeared before the place. Champlain could do
nothing but arrange a dignified surrender. For three years
following, Quebec and New France remained under the control of
the English. They were then restored, under a treaty
stipulation to France. "It long remained a mystery why Charles
consented to a stipulation which pledged him to resign so
important a conquest. The mystery is explained by the recent
discovery of a letter from the king to Sir Isaac Wake, his
ambassador at Paris. The promised dowry of Queen Henrietta
Maria, amounting to 800,000 crowns, had been but half paid by
the French government, and Charles, then at issue with his
Parliament and in desperate need of money, instructs his
ambassador that, when he receives the balance due, and not
before, he is to give up to the French both Quebec and Port
Royal, which had also been captured by Kirke. The letter was
accompanied by 'solemn instruments under our hand and seal' to
make good the transfer on fulfilment of the condition. It was
for a sum equal to about $240,000 that Charles entailed on
Great Britain and her colonies a century of bloody wars. The
Kirkes and their associates, who had made the conquest at
their own cost, under the royal authority, were never
reimbursed, though David Kirke received the honor of
knighthood, which cost the king nothing,"--and also the grant
of Newfoundland. On the 5th of July, 1632, Quebec was
delivered up by Thomas Kirke to Émery de Caen, commissioned by
the French king to reclaim the place. The latter held command
for one year, with a monopoly of the fur trade; then Champlain
resumed the government, on behalf of the Hundred Associates,
continuing in it until his death, which occurred on Christmas
Day, 1635.
F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New
World: Champlain, chapter 16-17.
ALSO IN:
Calendar of State Papers: Colonial
Series, 1574-1660, pages 96-143.
D. Brymuer, Report on Canadian Archives,
pages xi-xiv, and note D.
H. Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada.
See, also,
NEWFOUNDLAND, A. D. 1610-1655.
CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.
The Jesuit missions and their fate.
The first of the Jesuit missionaries came to Quebec in 1625,
as stated above, but it was not until nearly seven years later
that they made their way into the heart of the Indian country
and began there their devoted work. "The Father Superior of
the Mission was Paul le Jeune, a man devoted in every fibre of
mind and heart to the work on which he had come. He utterly
scorned difficulty and pain. He had received the order to
depart for Canada 'with inexpressible joy at the prospect of a
living or dying martyrdom.' Among his companions was Jean de
Brébœuf, a man noble in birth and aspect, of strong intellect
and will, of zeal which knew no limit, and recognized no
obstacle in the path of duty. ... Far in the west, beside a
great lake of which the Jesuits had vaguely heard, dwelt the
Hurons, a powerful nation with many kindred tribes over which
they exercised influence. The Jesuits resolved to found a
mission among the Hurons. Once in every year a fleet of canoes
came down the great river, bearing six or seven hundred Huron
warriors, who visited Quebec to dispose of their furs, to
gamble and to steal. Brébœuf and two companions took passage
[1634] with the returning fleet, and set out for the dreary
scene of their new apostolate. ... The Hurons received with
hospitable welcome the black-robed strangers. The priests were
able to repay the kindness with services of high value. They
taught more effective methods of fortifying the town in which
they lived. They promised the help of a few French musketeers
against an impending attack by the Iroquois. They cured
diseases; they bound up wounds. They gave simple instruction
to the young, and gained the hearts of their pupils by gifts
of beads and raisins. The elders of the people came to have
the faith explained to them: they readily owned that it was a
good faith for the French, but they could not be persuaded
that it was suitable for the red man.
{362}
The fathers laboured in hope and the savages learned to love them.
... Some of their methods of conversion were exceedingly
rude. A letter from Father Garnier has been preserved in which
pictures are ordered from France for the spiritual improvement
of the Indians. Many representations of souls in perdition
are required, with appropriate accompaniment of
flames, and triumphant demons tearing them with pincers. One
picture of saved souls would suffice, and 'a picture of Christ
without a beard.' They were consumed by a zeal for the baptism
of little children. At the outset the Indians welcomed this
ceremonial, believing that it was a charm to avert sickness
and death. But when epidemics wasted them they charged the
calamity against the mysterious operations of the fathers,
and refused now to permit baptism. The fathers recognized
the hand of Satan in this prohibition, and refused to submit
to it. They baptized by stealth. ... In time, the patient,
self-denying labour of the fathers might have won those
discouraging savages to the cross; but a fatal interruption
was at hand. A powerful and relentless enemy, bent on
extermination, was about to sweep over the Huron territory,
involving the savages and their teachers in one common ruin.
Thirty-two years had passed since those ill judged expeditions
in which Champlain had given help to the Hurons against the
Iroquois. The unforgiving savages had never forgotten the
wrong. ... The Iroquois [1648-1649] attacked in
overwhelming force the towns of their Huron enemies; forced
the inadequate defences; burned the palisades and wooden
huts; slaughtered with indescribable tortures the wretched
inhabitants. In one of these towns they found Brébœuf and one
of his companions. They bound the ill fated missionaries to
stakes; they hung around their necks collars of red-hot iron;
they poured boiling water on their heads; they cut stripes of
flesh from their quivering limbs and ate them in their sight.
To the last Brébœuf cheered with hopes of heaven the native
converts who shared his agony. And thus was gained the crown
of martyrdom for which in the fervour of their enthusiasm,
these good men had long yearned. In a few years the Huron
nation was extinct; famine and small-pox swept off those whom
the Iroquois spared. The Huron mission was closed by the
extirpation of the race for whom it was founded. Many of the
missionaries perished; some returned to France. Their labour
seemed to have been in vain; their years of toil and suffering
left no trace."
R. Mackenzie, America: A History, pages 326-332.
"With the fall of the Hurons, fell the best hope
of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and populous
communities around them, had been the rude material from which
the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire in the
wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
common ruin. ... In a measure, the occupation of the Jesuits
was gone. Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the
Father Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound
of the trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in
number, several soon fell victims to famine, hardship and the
Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission.
Political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
civil and military annals."
F. Parkman, The Jesuits in N. Am., chapter 34.
ALSO IN:
Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by
Shea, book 5-7 (volume 2).
J. G. Shea, The Jesuits, Recollects, and the Indians
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 6).
CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
Nicolet.
Marquette.
Joliet.
Pioneer exploration in the West and discovery of the Mississippi.
When Champlain gave up his work, the map of New France was
blank beyond Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. The first of the
French explorers who widened it far westward was a Norman
named Jean Nicolet, who came to America in 1618, and who was
trained for many years in Champlain's service. "After dwelling
some time among the Nipissings, he visited the Far West;
seemingly between the years 1634 and 1640. In a birch-bark
canoe, the brave Norman voyageur crossed or coasted Lake
Huron, entered the St. Mary's River, and, first of white men,
stood at the strait now called Sault Ste Marie. He does not
seem to have known of Lake Superior, but returned down the St.
Mary's River, passed from Lake Huron through the western
detour to Michilimackinac, and entered another fresh-water
sea, Mitchigannon or Michigan, also afterwards known as the
Lake of the Illinois, Lake St. Joseph, Lake Dauphin, or even
Algonquin Lake. Here he visited the Menomonee tribe of
Indians, and after them the Winnibagoes. ... The fierce wrath
of the Iroquois had driven numbers of the Hurons, Ottawas, and
several minor Algonquin tribes westward. The Iroquois, like a
wedge, had split the northern tribes into east and west. Sault
Ste Marie became a central point for the refugees. ... Another
gathering place for the fugitives had been found very near the
south-west corner of this great lake. This was La Pointe, one
of the Apostle Islands, near the present town of Ashland in
Wisconsin. The Jesuits took up these two points as mission
centres. ... In 1669 the Fathers Dablon and Marquette, with
their men, had erected a palisaded fort, enclosing a chapel
and house, at Sault Ste Marie. In the same year Father Allouez
had begun a mission at Green Bay. In 1670 an intrepid
explorer, St. Lusson, under orders from Intendant Talon, came
west searching for copper-mines. He was accompanied by the
afterwards well-known Joliet. When this party arrived at Sault
Ste Marie, the Indians were gathered together in great
numbers, and with imposing ceremonies St. Lusson took
possession of 'Sainte Marie du Saut, as also of Lakes Huron
and Superior, the island of Manetoulin, and all countries,
rivers, lakes, and streams contiguous and adjacent thereunto.'
... It was undoubtedly the pressing desire of the Jesuit
fathers to visit the country of the Illinois and their great
river that led to the discovery of the 'Father of Waters.'
Father Allouez indeed had already ascended the Fox River from
Lake Michigan, and seen the marshy lake which is the head of a
tributary of the Mississippi. At last on June 4th, 1672, the
French minister, Colbert, wrote to Talon: 'As after the
increase of the colony there is nothing more important for the
colony than the discovery of a passage to the South Sea, his
Majesty wishes you to give it your attention.'
{363}
This message to the Intendant came as he was leaving for
France, and he recommended the scheme and the explorer he had
in view for carrying it out to the notice of the Governor,
Frontenac, who had just arrived. Governor Frontenac approved
and the explorer started. The man chosen for the enterprise
was Louis Joliet, who had already been at Sault Ste Marie. He
was of humble birth, and was a native of New France. ... The
French Canadian explorer was acceptable to the missionaries,
and immediately journeyed west to meet Marquette, who was to
accompany him. ... M. Joliet met the priest Marquette at St.
Ignace Mission, Michilimackinac. Jacques Marquette, of whom we
have already heard, was born in 1637 at Laon, Champagne, in
France. He sprang of an ancient and distinguished family. ...
On May 17th, 1673, with deepest religious emotion, the trader
and missionary launched forth on Lake Michigan their two
canoes, containing seven Frenchmen in all, to make the
greatest discovery of the time. They hastened to Green Bay,
followed the course of Father Allouez up the Fox River, and
reached the tribe of the Mascoutins or Fire Nation on this
river. These were new Indians to the explorers. They were
peaceful, and helped the voyagers on their way. With guides
furnished, the two canoes were transported for 2,700 paces,
and the head waters of the Wisconsin were reached. After an
easy descent of 30 or 40 leagues, on June 17th, 1673, the feat
was accomplished, the Mississippi was discovered by white men,
and the canoes shot out upon its surface in latitude 43°.
Sailing down the great river for a month, the party reached
the village of Akansea, on the Arkansas River, in latitude
34°, and on July 17th began their return journey. It is but
just to say that some of the Recollet fathers, between whom
and the Jesuits jealousy existed, have disputed the fact of
Joliet and Marquette ever reaching this point. The evidence
here seems entirely in favour of the explorers. On their
return journey the party turned from the Mississippi into a
tributary river in latitude 38°. This was the Illinois.
Ascending this, the Indian town of Kaskaskia was reached, and
here for a time Father Marquette remained. Joliet and his
party passed on," arriving at Montreal in due time, but losing
all their papers in the rapids of the St. Lawrence. Father
Marquette established a mission among the Illinois Indians,
but his labors were cut short. He died while on a journey to
Green Bay, May 18, 1675. "High encomiums of Father Marquette
fill--and deservedly so--the 'Jesuit Relations.' We have his
autograph map of the Mississippi. This great stream he desired
to call 'Conception River,' but the name, like those of
'Colbert' and 'Buade' [the family name of Count Frontenac],
which were both bestowed upon it, have failed to take the
place of the musical Indian name."
G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 5, section 3.
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery
of the Great West, chapters 2-5.
C. W. Butterfield, History of the Discovery
of the N. W. by Nicolet.
J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery
and settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume l).
S. S. Hebberd, History of Wisconsin under
the dominion of France, chapter 1-2.
CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.
The Sulpician settlement of Montreal and religious activity at
Quebec.
Champlain was succeeded as governor of New France by M. de
Châteaufort, of whose brief administration little is known,
and the latter was followed by M. de Montmagny, out of the
translation of whose name the Indians formed the title
Onontio, signifying "Great Mountain," which they afterwards
applied to all the French governors. Montmagny entered with
zeal into the plans of Champlain, "but difficulties
accumulated on all sides. Men and money were wanting, trade
languished, and the Associated Company in France were daily
becoming indifferent to the success of the colony. Some few
merchants and inhabitants of the outposts, indeed, were
enriched by the profitable dealings of the fur-trade, but
their suddenly-acquired wealth excited the jealousy rather
than increased the general prosperity of the settlers. The
work of religious institutions was alone pursued with vigor
and success in those times of failure and discouragement. At
Sillery, one league from Quebec, an establishment was founded
for the instruction of the savages and the diffusion of
Christian light [1637]. The Hotel Dieu owed its existence to
the Duchesse d'Aiguillon two years afterward, and the convent
of the Ursulines was founded by the pious and high-born Madame
de la Peltrie. The partial success and subsequent failure of
Champlain and his Indian allies in their encounters with the
Iroquois had emboldened these brave and politic savages. They
now captured several canoes belonging to the Hurons, laden
with furs, which that friendly people were conveying to
Quebec. Montmagny's military force was too small to allow of
his avenging this insult; he, however, zealously promoted an
enterprise to build a fort and effect a settlement on the
island of Montreal, which he fondly hoped would curb the
audacity of his savage foes. The Associated Company would
render no aid whatever to this important plan, but the
religious zeal of the Abbé Olivier overcame all difficulties.
He obtained a grant of Montreal from the king, and dispatched
the Sieur de Maisonneuve and others to take possession. On the
17th of May, 1641, the place destined for the settlement was
consecrated by the superior of the Jesuits. At the same time
the governor erected a fort at the entrance of the River
Richelieu," which so far checked the Iroquois that they
entered into a treaty of peace and respected it for a brief
period.
E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 12.
The settlement of Montreal was undertaken by an association of
thirty-five rich and influential persons in France, among whom
was the Duke de Liancourt de la Hoche Guyon. "This company
obtained a concession of the island in 1640, and a member of
the association arrived at Quebec from France with several
immigrating families, some soldiers, and an armament valued at
25,000 piastres." In 1642 "a reinforcement of colonists
arrived, led by M. d'Ailleboust de Musseau. During the
following year, a second party came. At this time the European
population resident in Canada did not exceed 200 souls. The
immigrants who now entered it had been selected with the
utmost care."
A. Bell, History of Canada, book 3, chapter 1 (volume l).
In 1657 the seigniority of Montreal was ceded to the Seminary
of St. Sulpice in Paris, where the reins of its government
were held until 1692.
Father Charlevoix, History of New France,
translated by Shea, volume 3, page 23.
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 13-15.
{364}
CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.
The wars with the Iroquois.
"From about the year 1640 to the year 1700, a constant warfare
was maintained between the Iroquois and the French,
interrupted occasionally by negotiations and brief intervals
of peace. As the former possessed both banks of the St.
Lawrence, and the circuits of lakes Erie and Ontario, they
intercepted the fur trade, which the French were anxious to
maintain with the western nations. ... The war parties of the
League ranged through these territories so constantly that it
was impossible for the French to pass in safety through the
lakes, or even up the St. Lawrence above Montreal. ... So
great was the fear of these sudden attacks, that both the
traders and the missionaries were obliged to ascend the Ottawa
river to near its source, and from thence to cross over to the
Sault St. Marie, and the shores of Lake Superior. ... To
retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their
recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by
the French. ... In 1665, M. Courcelles, governor of Canada,
led a strong party into the country of the Mohawks; but the
hardships they encountered rendered it necessary for them to
return without accomplishing their purpose. The next year, M.
de Tracy, Viceroy of New France, with 1,200 French and 600
Indians, renewed the invasion with better success. He captured
Te-ä-ton-ta-ló-ga, one of the principal villages of the
Mohawks, situated at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek; but
after destroying the town, and the stores of corn, which they
found in caches, they were obliged to retire without meeting
an opposing force. Again, in 1684. M. De La Barre, then
governor of Canada, entered the country of the Onondagas, with
about 1,800 men. Having reached Hungry Bay, on the east shore
of lake Ontario, a conference was had with a delegation of
Iroquois chiefs. ... A species of armistice was finally agreed
upon, and thus the expedition ended. A more successful
enterprise was projected and carried into execution in 1687 by
M. De Nonville, then governor of Canada. Having raised a force
of 2,000 French and 600 Indians, he embarked them in a fleet
of 200 bateau, and as many birch bark canoes. After coasting
lake Ontario from Kingston to Irondequoit bay, in the
territory of the Senecas, he landed at the head of this bay,
and found himself within a few miles of the principal villages
of the Senecas, which were then in the counties of Ontario and
Monroe." After one battle with about 500 of the Senecas, the
latter retreated into the interior, and the French destroyed
four of their villages, together with the surrounding fields
of growing corn. "To retaliate for this invasion, a formidable
party of the Iroquois, in the fall of the same year, made a
sudden descent upon Fort Chambly, on the Sorel River, near
Montreal. Unable to capture the fort, which was resolutely
defended by the garrison, they ravaged the settlements
adjacent, and returned with a number of captives. About the
same time, a party of 800 attacked Frontenac, on the site of
Kingston, and destroyed and laid waste the plantations and
establishments of the French without the fortification. In
July of the ensuing year the French were made to feel still
more sensibly the power of their revenge. A band of 1,200
warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a
descent upon the island of Montreal. ... All that were without
the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless
tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged,
and the whole island covered with desolation. About 1,000 of
the French, according to some writers, perished in this
invasion, or were carried into captivity. ... Overwhelmed by
this sudden disaster, the French destroyed their forts at
Niagara and Frontenac, and thus yielded the whole country west
of Montreal to the possession of the Iroquois. At this
critical period Count Frontenac again became governor of
Canada, and during the short residue of his life devoted
himself, with untiring energy, to restore its declining
prosperity."
L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
W. Kingsford, History of Canada, book 2-4 (volume 1-2).
E. B. O'Callaghan, editor, Doc. History
of New York, volume 1, pages 57-278.
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 2,
ch.3 and 8.
O. H. Marshall, Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against
the Senecas (Hist. Writings, pages 123-186).
CANADA: A. D. 1660-1688.
French encroachments and English concessions in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
CANADA: A.D. 1663-1674.
Erected by Colbert into a Royal Province.
Brief career of the French West India Company.
"In 1663 the proceedings of the company [of the hundred
associates] became so obnoxious that the king of France
decided upon the immediate resumption of his rights, and the
erecting of Canada into a royal government: Monsieur de Mésy
was appointed governor, and proceeded from France to Quebec
with 400 regular troops, and 100 families as settlers, with
cattle, horses and implements of agriculture. Under the royal
jurisdiction, the governor, a king's commissioner, an
apostolical vicar, and four other gentlemen, were formed into
a sovereign council, to whom were confided the powers of
cognizance in all causes, civil and criminal, to judge in the
last resort according to the laws and ordinances of France,
and the practice of the Parliament of Paris, reserving the
general legislative powers of the Crown, to be applied
according to circumstances. This Council was further invested
with the regulation of commerce, the expenditure of the public
monies, and the establishment of inferior courts at Three
Rivers and Montreal. This change of Canada from an
ecclesiastical mission to a secular government was owing to
the great Colbert, who was, animated by the example of Great
Britain, to improve the navigation and commerce of his country
by colonial establishments. The enlightened policy of this
renowned financial minister of Louis XIV. was followed by the
success which it deserved. To a regulated civil government was
added increased military protection against the Iroquois
Indians; the emigration of French settlers to New France was
promoted by every possible means, and a martial spirit was
imparted to the population, by the location in the colony of
the disbanded soldiers of the Carignan regiment ... and other
troops, whose officers became the principal Seigneurs of the
colony, on condition of making cessions of land under the
feudal tenure, as it still exists, to the soldiers and other
inhabitants." The ambitious projects of Louis XIV. soon led,
however, to a new measure which proved less satisfactory in
its working.
{365}
"The French West India Company was remodelled [1664], and
Canada added to their possessions, subordinate to the crown of
France, with powers controlled by his Majesty's governors and
Intendants in the different colonies." The domain of the
company embraced all the possessions of France in the New
World and its islands and on the African coast. "The company
was to enjoy a monopoly of the territories and the trade of
the colonies thus conceded for 40 years; it was not only to
enjoy the exclusive navigation, but his Majesty conferred a
bounty of 30 livres on every ton of goods exported to France.
... The company was not only endowed as Seigneur with all
unconceded lands, but invested with the right of extinguishing
the titles of seigniories granted or sold by previous
companies, on condition of reimbursing the grantees and
purchasers for their costs and improvements." The West India
Company's management soon showed evil effects, and came to an
end after ten years of unsatisfactory trial. "Monsieur De
Talon, the Intendant, a man of profound views, ... perceived
that it was the natural interest of the Company to discourage
colonization. He represented to the minister Colbert the
absolute necessity of the total resumption of the rights of
the crown; drew his attention to the means of obtaining
abundance of warlike instruments and naval stores within the
colony ... and, in fact, at last prevailed; so that, in 1674,
the king of France resumed his rights to all the territories
conceded to the West India Company, assumed their debts and
the current value of their stock, and appointed a governor,
council and judges for the direction of the Canadian colonies.
... From this period (1674), when the population, embracing
converted Indians, did not exceed 8,000, the French settlement
in Canada rapidly progressed, and as it rose in power, and
assumed offensive operations on the New England frontier, the
jealousy of the British colonies became roused, and both
parties, aided alternately by the Indians, carried on a
destructive and harassing border warfare."
R. M. Martin, History of Upper and Lower Canada, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
A. Bell, History of Canada,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume l).
F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapters 10-17.
CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
La Salle and the acquisition of Louisiana.
"Second only to Champlain among the heroes of Canadian history
stands Robert Cavelier de la Salle--a man of iron if ever
there was one--a man austere and cold in manner, and endowed
with such indomitable pluck and perseverance as have never
been surpassed in this world. He did more than any other man
to extend the dominion of France in the New World. As
Champlain had founded the colony of Canada and opened the way
to the great lakes, so La Salle completed the discovery of the
Mississippi, and added to the French possessions the vast
province of Louisiana. ... In 1669 La Salle made his first
journey to the west, hoping to find a northwest passage to
China, but very little is known about this expedition, except
that the Ohio river was discovered, and perhaps also the
Illinois. La Salle's feudal domain of St. Sulpice, some eight
miles from Montreal, bears to-day the name of La Chine, or
China, which is said to have been applied to it in derision of
this fruitless expedition. In 1673 the priest Marquette and
the fur-trader Joliet actually reached the Mississippi by way
of the Wisconsin, and sailed down the great river as far as
the mouth of the Arkansas; and now the life-work of La Salle
began in earnest. He formed a grand project for exploring the
Mississippi to its mouth, and determining whether it, flowed
into the Gulf of California or the Gulf of Mexico. The advance
of Spain on the side of Mexico was to be checked forever, the
English were to be confined to the east of the Alleghanies,
and such military posts were to be established as would
effectually confirm the authority of Louis XIV. throughout the
centre of this continent. La Salle had but little ready money,
and was surrounded by rivals and enemies; but he had a
powerful friend in Count Frontenac, the Viceroy of Canada. ...
At length, after surmounting innumerable difficulties, a
vessel [the Griffon or Griffin] was built and launched on the
Niagara river [1679], a small party of 30 or 40 men were
gathered together, and La Salle, having just recovered from a
treacherous dose of poison, embarked on his great enterprise.
His departure was clouded by the news that his impatient
creditors had laid hands upon his Canadian estates; but,
nothing daunted, he pushed on through Lakes Erie and Huron,
and after many disasters reached the southern extremity of
Lake Michigan. The vessel was now sent back, with half the
party, to Niagara, carrying furs to appease the creditors and
purchase additional supplies for the remainder of the journey,
while La Salle with his diminished company pushed on to the
Illinois, where a fort was built, and appropriately named Fort
Crèvecœur, or, as we might translate it, the 'fort of the
breaking heart.' Here, amid perils of famine, mutiny, and
Indian attack, and exposed to death from the wintry cold, they
waited until it became evident to all that their vessel must
have perished. She never was heard from again, and most likely
had foundered on her perilous voyage. To add to the trouble,
La Salle was again poisoned; but his iron constitution, aided
by some lucky antidote, again carried him safely through the
ordeal, and about the 1st of March, 1680, he started on foot
for Montreal. Leaving Fort Crèveœur and its tiny garrison
under command of his faithful lieutenant, Tonty, he set out
with four Frenchmen and one Mohegan guide. ... They made their
way for a thousand miles across Michigan and Western Canada to
Niagara, and so on to Montreal. ... At Niagara La Salle
learned that a ship from France, freighted for him with a
cargo worth more than 20,000 livres, had been wrecked in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, and nothing had been saved. In spite of
this dreadful blow he contrived to get together supplies and
reenforcements at Montreal, and had returned to Fort
Frontenac, at the lower end of Lake Ontario, when still more
woful tidings were received. Here, toward the end of July, a
message came from the fortress so well named Crèvecœur. The
garrison had mutinied and destroyed the fort, and made their
way back through Michigan." The indomitable La Salle promptly
hunted down the deserters, and sent them in chains to Quebec.
He then "proceeded again to the Illinois to reconstruct his
fort, and rescue, if possible, his lieutenant Tonty and the
few faithful followers who had survived the mutiny. This
little party, abandoned in the wilderness, had found shelter
among the Illinois Indians; but during the summer of 1680 the
great village or town of the Illinois was destroyed by the
Iroquois, and the hard-pressed Frenchmen retreated up the
western shore of Lake Michigan to Green Bay.-
{366}
On arriving at the Illinois, therefore, La Salle found nothing
but the terrible traces of fire and massacre and cannibal
orgies; but he spent the following winter to good purpose in
securing the friendship of the western Indians, and in making
an alliance with them against the Iroquois. Then, in May,
1681, he set out again for Canada, to look after his creditors
and obtain new resources. On the way home, at the outlet of
Lake Michigan, he met his friend Tonty, and together they
paddled their canoes a thousand miles and came to Fort
Frontenac. So, after all this hardship and disaster, the work
was to be begun anew; and the enemies of the great explorer
were exulting in what they imagined must be his despair. But
that was a word of which La Salle knew not the meaning, and
now his fortunes began to change. In Mr. Parkman's words,
'Fate at length seemed tired of the conflict with so stubborn
an adversary.' At this third venture everything went smoothly.
The little fleet passed up the great lakes, from the outlet of
Ontario to the head of Michigan, and gained the Chicago River.
Crossing the narrow portage, they descended the Illinois and
the Mississippi, till they came out upon the Gulf of Mexico;
and on the 9th of April, 1682, the fleurs-de-lis were planted
at the mouth of the great river, and all the country drained
by its tributaries, from the Alleghanies to the Rocky
Mountains, was formally declared to be the property of the
king of France, and named after him Louisiana. Returning up
the river after his triumph, La Salle founded a station or
small colony on the Illinois, which he called St. Louis, and
leaving Tonty in command, kept on to Canada, and crossed to
France for means to circumvent his enemies and complete his
far-reaching schemes. A colony was to be founded at the mouth
of the Mississippi, and military stations were to connect this
with the French settlements in Canada. At the French court La
Salle was treated like a hero, and a fine expedition was soon
fitted out, but everything was ruined by jealousy and ill-will
between La Salle and the naval commander, Beaujeu. The fleet
sailed beyond the mouth of the Mississippi, the colony was
thrown upon the coast of Texas, some of the vessels were
wrecked, and Beaujeu--though apparently without sinister
design--sailed away with the rest, and two years of terrible
suffering followed. At last, in March, 1687, La Salle started
to find the Mississippi, hoping to ascend it to Tonty's fort
on the Illinois, and obtain relief for his followers. But he
had scarcely set out on this desperate enterprise when two or
three mutinous wretches of his party laid an ambush for him in
the forest, and shot him dead. Thus, at the early age of
forty-three, perished this extraordinary man, with his
life-work but half accomplished. Yet his labors had done much
towards building up the imposing dominion with which New
France confronted New England in the following century."
J. Fiske, The Romance of the Spanish and French
Explorers (Harper's Mag., volume 64, pages 446-448.)
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery of the Great
West.
Chevalier Tonti, Account of M. de la Salle's last Expedition
(New York Historical Society Collections, volume 2).
J. G. Shea, Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi
Valley.
C. Le Clercq, First Establishment of the Faith in New
France, translated by Shea, chapter 21-25 (volume 2).
CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
The Schenectady Massacre.
Montreal threatened, Quebec attacked, and Port Royal taken by
the English.
The Revolution of 1688, in England, which drove James II. from
the throne, and called to it his daughter Mary with her able
husband, William of Orange, produced war between England and
France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690). The French and English
colonies in America were soon involved in the contest, and so
far as it troubled American history, it bears in New England
annals 'the name of King William's War. "If the issue had
depended on the condition of the colonies, it could hardly
have seemed doubtful. The French census for the North American
continent, in 1688, showed but 11,249 persons, scarcely a
tenth part of the English population on its frontiers; about a
twentieth part of English North America. West of Montreal, the
principal French posts, and those but inconsiderable ones,
were at Frontenac, at Mackinaw, and on the Illinois. At,
Niagara, there was a wavering purpose of maintaining a post,
but no permanent occupation. So weak were the garrisons that
English traders, with an escort of Indians, had ventured even
to Mackinaw. ... France, bounding its territory next New
England by the Kennebec, claimed the whole eastern coast, Nova
Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Hudson's Bay;
and to assert and defend this boundless region, Acadia and its
dependencies counted but 900 French inhabitants. The
missionaries, swaying the minds of the Abenakis, were the sole
source of hope. On the declaration of war by France against
England, Count Frontenac, once more governor of Canada, was
charged to recover Hudson's Bay; to protect Acadia; and, by a
descent from Canada, to assist a fleet from France in making
conquest of New York. Of that province De Callieres was, in
advance, appointed governor; the English Catholics were to be
permitted to remain,--other inhabitants to be sent into
Pennsylvania or New England. ... In the east, blood was first
shed at Cocheco, where, thirteen years before, an unsuspecting
party of 350 Indians had been taken prisoners and shipped for
Boston, to be sold into foreign slavery. The memory of the
treachery was indelible, and the Indian emissaries of Castin
easily excited the tribe of Penacook to revenge. On the
evening of the 27th of June [1689] two squaws repaired to the
house of Richard Waldron, and the octogenarian magistrate bade
them lodge on the floor. At night, they rise, unbar the gates,
and summon their companions," who tortured the aged Waldron
until he died. "The Indians, burning his house and others that
stood near it, having killed three-and-twenty, returned to the
wilderness with 29 captives." In August, the stockade at
Pemaquid was taken by 100 Indians from the French mission on
the Penobscot. "Other inroads were made by the Penobscot and
St. John Indians, so that the settlements east of Falmouth
were deserted. In September, commissioners from New England
held a conference with the Mohawks at Albany, soliciting an
alliance. 'We have burned Montreal,' said they; 'we are the
allies of the English; we will keep the chain unbroken.'
{367}
But they refused to invade the Abenakis. ... Frontenac ... now
used every effort to win the Five Nations [the Iroquois] to
neutrality or to friendship. To recover esteem in their eyes;
to secure to Durantaye, the commander at Mackinaw, the means
of treating with the Hurons and the Ottawas; it was resolved
by Frontenac to make a triple descent into the English
provinces. From Montreal, a party of 110, composed of French
and of the Christian Iroquois,--having De Mantet and Sainte
Helene as leaders ... --for two and twenty days waded through
snows and morasses, through forests and across rivers, to
Schenectady. The village had given itself calmly to slumber:
through open and unguarded gates the invaders entered silently
[February 8, 1690], and having, just before midnight, reached its
heart, the war-whoop was raised (dreadful sound to the mothers
of that place and their children!), and the dwellings set on
fire. Of the inhabitants, some, half clad, fled through the
snows to Albany; 60 were massacred, of whom 17 were children
and 10 were Africans. ... The party from Three Rivers, led by
Hertel, and consisting of but 52 persons ... surprised the
settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, and, after a
bloody engagement, burned houses, barns, and cattle in the
stalls, and took 54 prisoners, chiefly women and children. ...
Returning from this expedition, Hertel met the war party,
under Portneuf, from Quebec, and, with them and a
reenforcement from Castin, made a successful attack on the
fort and settlement in Casco Bay. Meantime, danger taught the
colonies the necessity of union, and, on the 1st day of May,
1690, New York beheld the momentous example of an American
congress [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690]. ... At
that congress it was resolved to attempt the conquest of
Canada by marching an army, by way of Lake Champlain, against
Montreal, while Massachusetts should, with a fleet, attack
Quebec."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3), (pt.
3, chapter 11, volume 2, in the "Author's last Revision").
Before the end of the month in which the congress was held,
Port Royal and the whole of Acadia had already been conquered,
having surrendered to an expedition sent out by Massachusetts,
in eight small vessels, under Sir William Phips. The larger fleet
(consisting of 32 ships and carrying 2,000 men) directed
against Quebec, sailed in August from Nastasket, and was,
likewise, commanded by Phips. "The plan of the campaign
contemplated a diversion to be made by an assault on Montreal,
by a force composed of English from Connecticut and New York,
and of Iroquois Indians, at the same time with the attack on
Quebec by the fleet. And a second expedition into Maine under
Captain Church was to threaten the Eastern tribes whose
incursions had, during the last summer, been so disastrous.
... As is so apt to happen when a plan involves the
simultaneous action of distant parties, the condition of
success failed. The movement of Church, who had with him but
300 men, proved ineffective as to any contribution to the
descent upon Canada. ... It was not till after a voyage of
more than six weeks that the fleet from Boston cast anchor
within the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and meanwhile the
overland expedition against Montreal had miscarried. The
commanders respectively of the Connecticut and the New York
troops had disagreed, and could not act effectively together.
... The supply, both of boats and of provisions, was found to
be insufficient. The disastrous result was that a retreat was
ordered, without so much as an embarkation of the troops on
Lake Champlain. Frontenac was at Montreal, whither he had gone
to superintend the defence, when the intelligence, so
unexpected, reached him from Quebec; and presently after came
the tidings of Phips's fleet being in the St. Lawrence.
Nothing could have been more opportune than this coincidence,
which gave the Governor liberty to hasten down to direct his
little force of 200 soldiers at the capital. The French
historian says that, if he had been three days later, or if
the English fleet had not been delayed by contrary winds, or
had had better pilots in the river, where it was nearly a
fortnight more in making its slow way, Frontenac would have
come down from the upper country only to find the English
commander in his citadel. As it was, there ensued a crushing
mortification and sorrow to Massachusetts. New France was made
much more formidable than ever." The fleet arrived before
Quebec Oct. 6, and retreated on the 11th, after considerable
cannonading and an assault which the French repelled. It
suffered storms and disasters on the return voyage, and lost
altogether some 200 men.
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis
XIV., chapter 10-13.
Doc. History of New York, volume 1-2.
F. Bowen, Life of Sir W. Phips
(Library of American Biog., volume 7), chapter 2-3.
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 12.
J. Pearson, et al, History of the Schenectady Patent,
chapter 8-10.
CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.
The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):
Abortive plans of invasion on both sides.
French recovery of Acadia.
"The defeat of the expedition of 1690 was probably
attributable to the want of concert on the part of the troops
from Connecticut and New York and those from Massachusetts,
and the failure of the supplies which were sought from
England. ... But there was mismanagement on all hands in the
conduct of the expedition; and it seems to have been
predestinated that New England should not be delivered from
the presence of the French at the north, until time had
wrought the necessary changes which were to render the
conquest of that country available for the promotion of still
more important ends. Hence a new expedition, projected two
years later, and resolved to be prosecuted in the following
year [1693], was attended with the like circumstances of
mortification and defeat. England herself participated in this
enterprise, and ... the government was informed that it had
'pleased the king, out of his great goodness and disposition
for the welfare of all his subjects, to send a considerable
strength of ships and men into the West Indies, and to direct
Sir Francis Wheeler, the admiral, to sail to New England from
the Caribbee Islands, so as to be there by the last of May or
the middle of June at furthest, with a strength sufficient to
overcome the enemy, if joined and seconded by the forces of
New England.' ... Unfortunately for the success of these
plans, the letter, which should have reached Boston by the
first of April, did not arrive until July; and the mortality
which prevailed in the fleet during its stay in the West
Indies was so great that, when the commander-in-chief, Sir
Francis Wheeler, anchored off Nantasket,--bringing himself the
news of the projected invasion,--he had lost 1,300 out of
2,100 sailors, and 1,800 out of 2,400 soldiers.
{368}
All thoughts of reducing Canada were therefore abandoned; but
a plan for another year was settled with the governor, the
details of which were that 2,000 land forces should be sent
from England to Canseau by the first of June, to be joined by
2,000 from the colonies, and that the whole force should go up
the St. Lawrence, divide and simultaneously attack Montreal
and Quebec. Changes in the government of the province,
however, and other causes, prevented the execution of this
plan, whose success was problematical even if it had been
attempted. But if the plans of the English for the reduction
of Canada were doomed to disappointment, the plans of the
French for the recovery of Acadia were more successful. For
the first year after the conquest of that country, indeed, the
French were as little concerned to regain, as the English were
to retain, the possession of its territory; nor was
Massachusetts able to bear the charge of a sufficient military
force to keep its inhabitants in subjection, though she issued
commissions to judges and other officers, and required the
administration of the oath of fidelity. In the course of that
year [1691], authority was given to Mr. John Nelson, of
Boston, who had taken an active part in the overthrow of
Andros, and who was bound thither on a trading voyage, to be
commander-in-chief of Acadia; but as he neared the mouth of
the St. John's, he was taken by Monsieur Villebon, who, under
a commission from the French king, had touched at Port Royal,
and ordered the English flag to be struck, and the French flag
to be raised in its place. The next year an attempt was made
to dislodge Villebon, but without success. ... In the summer
of 1696, Pemaquid was taken by the French, under D'Iberville
and Castine, and the frontier of the dominion of France was
extended into Maine; and by the treaty of the following year
Acadia was receded to France, and the English relinquished
their claims to the country. The last year of King William's
War, as it was long termed in New England, was a year of
especial alarm to the province [Massachusetts] and rumors were
rife that the French were on the eve of fitting out a
formidable fleet for the invasion of the colonies and the
conquest of New York." According to the plan of the French
undertaking, a powerful fleet from France was to be joined by
a force of 1,500 men, raised by Count Frontenac, in Canada,
and make, first, a conquest of Boston. "When that town was
taken, they were to range the coast to Piscataqua, destroying
the settlements as far back into the country as possible.
Should there be time for further acquisitions, they were next
to go to New York, and upon its reduction the Canadian troops
were to march overland to Quebec, laying waste the country as
they proceeded." This project was frustrated by happenings
much the same in kind as those which thwarted the designs of
the English against Quebec. The fleet was delayed by contrary
winds, and by certain bootless undertakings in Newfoundland,
until the season was too far advanced for the enterprise
contemplated. "The peace of Ryswick, which soon followed, led
to a temporary suspension of hostilities. France, anxious to
secure as large a share of territory in America as possible,
retained the whole coast and adjacent islands from Maine to
Labrador and Hudson's Bay, with Canada, and the Valley of the
Mississippi. The possessions of England were southward from
the St. Croix. But the bounds between the nations were
imperfectly defined, and were, for a long time, a subject of
dispute and negotiation.".
J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts volume 2, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis
XIV., chapter 16-19.
J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 14.
See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
CANADA: A. D. 1696.
Frontenac's expedition against the Iroquois.
The war with the "Bastonnais" or "Bostonnais," as he called
the New Englanders, did not divert Frontenac's attention from
"the grand castigation which at last he was planning for the
Iroquois. He had succeeded, in 1694, in inducing them to meet
him in general council at Quebec, and had framed the
conditions of a truce; but the English at Albany intrigued to
prevent the fulfilment, and war was again imminent. Both sides
were endeavoring to secure the alliance of the tribes of the
upper lakes. These wavered, and Frontenac saw the peril and
the remedy. His recourse was to attack the Iroquois in their
villages at once, and conquer on the Mohawk the peace he
needed at Michilimackinac. It was Frontenac's last campaign.
Early in July [1696] he left Montreal with 2,200 men. He went
by way of Fort Frontenac, crossed Lake Ontario, landed at
Oswego, and struggled up its stream, and at last set sails to
his canoes on Lake Onondaga. Then his force marched again, and
Frontenac, enfeebled by his years, was borne along in an
arm-chair. Eight or nine miles and a day's work brought them
to the Onondaga village; but its inhabitants had burned it and
fled. Vaudreuil was sent with a detachment which destroyed the
town of the Oneidas. After committing all the devastation of
crops that he could, in hopes that famine would help him,
Frontenac began his homeward march before the English at
Albany were aroused at all. The effect was what Frontenac
wished. The Iroquois ceased their negotiations with the
western tribes, and sued for peace."
G. Stewart, Jr., Frontenac and His Times (Narrative and
Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 7).
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis
XIV., chapter 18-19.
CANADA: A. D. 1698-1710.
Colonization of Louisiana and the organization of its separate
government.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
The spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
on the Lakes.
"From the time of La Salle's visit in 1679, we can trace a
continuous French occupation of Illinois. ... He planted his
citadel of St. Louis on the summit of 'Starved Rock,'
proposing to make that the centre of his colony. ... At first
his colony was exceedingly feeble, but it was never
discontinued. 'Joutel found a garrison at Fort St. Louis ...
in 1687, and in 1689 La Hontan bears testimony that it still
continued. In 1696 a public document proves its existence; and
when Tonty, in 1700, again descended the Mississippi, he was
attended by twenty Canadians, residents on the Illinois.'
{369}
Even while the wars named after King William and Queen Anne
were going on, the French settlements were growing in numbers
and increasing in size; those wars over, they made still more
rapid progress. Missions grew into settlements and parishes.
Old Kaskaskia was begun in what La Salle called the
'terrestrial paradise' before the close of the seventeenth
century. The Wabash Valley was occupied about 1700, the first
settlers entering it by the portage leading from the Kankakee.
Later the voyageurs found a shorter route to the fertile
valley. ... The French located their principal missions and
posts with admirable judgment. There is not one of them in
which we cannot see the wisdom of the priest, of the soldier,
and the trader combined. The triple alliance worked for an
immediate end, but the sites that they chose are as important
to-day as they were when they chose them. ... La Salle's
colony of St. Louis was planted in one of the gardens of the
world, in the midst of a numerous Indian population, on the
great line of travel between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi
River. Kaskaskia and the neighboring settlements held the
centre of the long line extending from Canada to Louisiana.
'The Wabash colony commanded that valley and the Lower Ohio.
Detroit was a position so important that, securely held by the
French, it practically banished from the English mind for
fifty years the thought of acquiring the Northwest. ... Then
how unerringly were the French guided to the carrying places
between the Northern and the Southern waters, viz., Green Bay,
Fox River, and the Wisconsin; the Chicago River and the
Illinois; the St. Joseph and the Kankakee; the St. Joseph and
the Wabash; the Maumee and the Wabash; and, later, on the eve
of the war that gave New France to England, the Chautauqua and
French Creek routes from Lake Erie to the Ohio. ... In due
time the French began to establish themselves on the Northern
frontier of the British colonies. They built Fort Niagara in
1726, four years' after the English built Fort Oswego.
Following the early footsteps of Champlain, they ascended to
the head of the lake that bears his name, where they fortified
Crown Point in 1727, and Ticonderoga in 1731. Presque Isle,
the present site of the city of Erie, was occupied about the
time that Vincennes was founded in the Wabash Valley [1735].
Finally, just on the eve of the last struggle between England
and France, the French pressed into the valleys of the
Alleghany and the Ohio, at the same time that the English also
began to enter them."
B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 4.
CANADA: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Second Inter-Colonial War (Queen Anne's War):
Border ravages in New England and Acadia.
English Conquest of Acadia.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
The Second Inter-Colonial War.
Walker's Expedition against Quebec.
Massacre of Fox Indians.
The Peace of Utrecht.
After the reduction of Port Royal, which was practically the
conquest of Acadia, Colonel Nicholson, who bore the honors of
that achievement, repaired to England and prevailed with the
government to fit out an adequate expedition for the Conquest
of Canada. "The fleet, consisting of 15 ships of war and 40
transports, was placed under the command of Sir Hovenden
Walker; seven veteran regiments from Marlborough's army, with
a battalion of marines, were intrusted to Mrs. Masham's second
brother, whom the queen had pensioned and made a
brigadier-general, whom his bottle companions called honest
Jack Hill. ... From June 25th to the 30th day of July 1711,
the fleet lay at Boston, taking in supplies and the colonial
forces. At the same time, an army of men from Connecticut, New
Jersey, and New York, Palatine emigrants, and about 600
Iroquois, assembling at Albany, prepared to burst upon
Montreal; while in Wisconsin the English had allies in the
Foxes, who were always wishing to expel the French from
Michigan. In Quebec, measures of defence began by a renewal of
friendship with the Indians. To deputies from the Onondagas
and Senecas, the governor spoke of the fidelity with which the
French had kept their treaty; and he reminded them of their
promise to remain quiet upon their mats. A war festival was
next held, at which were present all the savages domiciliated
near the French settlements, and all the delegates of their
allies who had come down to Montreal. In the presence of 700
or 800 warriors, the war song was sung and the hatchet
uplifted. The savages of the remote west were wavering, till
twenty Hurons from Detroit took up the hatchet, and swayed all
the rest by their example. By the influence of the Jesuits
over the natives, an alliance extending to the Ojibways
constituted the defence of Montreal. Descending to Quebec,
Vaudreuil found Abenaki volunteers assembling for his
protection. Measures for resistance had been adopted with
heartiness; the fortifications were strengthened; Beauport was
garrisoned; and the people were resolute and confiding; even
women were ready to labor for the common defence. Toward the
last of August, it was said that peasants at Matanes had
descried 90 or 96 vessels with the English flag. Yet September
came, and still from the heights of Cape Diamond no eye caught
one sail of the expected enemy. The English squadron, leaving
Boston on the 30th of July [1711], after loitering near the
bay of Gaspé, at last began to ascend the St. Lawrence, while
Sir Hovenden Walker puzzled himself with contriving how he
would secure his vessels during the winter at Quebec." At the
same time, the present and actual difficulties of the
expedition were so heedlessly and ignorantly dealt with that
eight ships of the fleet were wrecked among the rocks and
shoals near the Egg Islands, and 884 men were drowned. The
enterprise was then abandoned. "'Had we arrived safe at
Quebec,' wrote the admiral, 'ten or twelve thousand men must
have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a
part, Providence saved all the rest.' Such was the issue of
hostilities in the north-east. Their total failure left the
expedition from Albany no option but to return, and Montreal
was unmolested. Detroit, in 1712, almost fell before the valor
of a party of the Ottagamies, or Foxes. ... Resolving to burn
Detroit, they pitched their lodgings near the fort, which Du
Buisson, with but twenty Frenchmen, defended. Aware of their
intention, he summoned his Indian allies from the chase; and,
about the middle of May, Ottawas and Hurons and
Pottawottamies, with one branch of the Sacs, Illinois,
Menomonies, and even Osages and Missouris, each nation with
its own ensign, came to his relief.
{370}
So wide was the influence of the missionaries in the
West. ... The warriors of the Fox nation, far from destroying
Detroit, were themselves besieged, and at last were compelled
to surrender at discretion. Those Who bore arms were
ruthlessly murdered; the rest distributed among the
confederates, to be enslaved or massacred at the will of their
masters. Cherished as the loveliest spot in Canada, the
possession of Detroit secured for Quebec a great highway to
the upper Indian tribes and to the Mississippi. ... In the
meantime, the preliminaries of a treaty had been signed
between France and England; and the war ... was suspended by
negotiations that were soon followed by the uncertain peace of
Utrecht [April 11, 1713]. ... England, by the peace of
Utrecht, obtained from France large concessions of territory
in America. The assembly of New York had addressed the queen
against French settlements in the West; William Penn advised
to establish the St. Lawrence as the boundary on the north,
and to include in our colonies the valley of the Mississippi.
'It will make a glorious country'; such were his prophetic
words. ... The colony of Louisiana excited in Saint-John
'apprehensions of the future undertakings of the French in
North America.' The occupation of the Mississippi valley had
been proposed to Queen Anne; yet, at the peace, that immense
region remained to France. But England obtained the bay of
Hudson and its borders; Newfoundland, subject to the rights of
France in its fisheries; and all Nova Scotia, or Acadia,
according to its ancient boundaries. It was agreed that
'France should never molest the Five Nations subject to the
dominion of Great Britain.' But Louisiana, according to French
ideas, included both banks of the Mississippi. Did the treaty
of Utrecht assent to such an extension of French territory?
And what were the ancient limits of Acadia? Did it include all
that is now New Brunswick? or had France still a large
territory on the Atlantic between Acadia and Maine? And what
were the bounds of the territory of the Five Nations, which
the treaty appeared to recognize as a part of the English
dominions? These were questions which were never to be
adjusted amicably."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's Last
Revision), part 3, chapter 12 (volume 2).
With reference to the destruction of the Fox Indians at
Detroit, a recent writer says: "The French official reports
pretend that the Wisconsin Indians, being in secret alliance
with the Iroquois and the English, had come to Detroit with
the express purpose of besieging the fort and reducing it to
ruins; and their statement has heretofore been unsuspectingly
accepted by all historians. But there is little doubt that the
charge is a shameful falsehood. The Fox Indians had rendered
themselves very obnoxious to the French. Firmly lodged on the
Fox River, they controlled the chief highway to the West; a
haughty, independent and intractable people, they could not be
cajoled into vassalage. It was necessary for the success of
the French policy to get them out of the way. They were
enticed to Detroit in order that they might be slaughtered."
S. S. Hebberd, History of Wisconsin under the dominion of
France, chapter 5-6.
ALSO IN:
Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 5.
W. Kingsford, History of Canada,
book 6, chapter 5-6 (volume 2).
R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton,
letters 8-9.
See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714,
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D.1713.
CANADA: A. D. 1720.
The fortifying of Louisbourg.
See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.
CANADA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Inter-Colonial War (King George's War).
Loss and recovery of Louisbourg and Cape Breton.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
CANADA: A. D. 1748-1754.
Active measures to fortify possession of the Ohio Valley and
the West.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.
Boundaries disputes with England.
Futile negotiations at Paris.
"For the past three years [1750-1753] the commissioners
appointed under the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle to settle the
question of boundaries between France and England in America
had been in session at Paris, waging interminable war on
paper; La Galissonière and Silhouette for France, Shirley and
Mildmay for England. By the treaty of Utrecht, Acadia belonged
to England; but what was Acadia? According to the English
commissioners, it comprised not only the peninsula called Nova
Scotia, but all the immense tract of land between the River
St. Lawrence on the north, the Gulf of the same name on the
east, the Atlantic on the south, and New England on the west.
The French commissioners, on their part, maintained that the
name Acadia belonged of right only to about a twentieth part
of this territory, and that it did not even cover the whole of
the Acadian peninsula, but only its southern coast, with an
adjoining belt of barren wilderness. When the French owned
Acadia, they gave it boundaries as comprehensive as those
claimed for it by the English commissionaries; now that it
belonged to a rival, they cut it down to a paring of its
former self. ... Four censuses of Acadia while it belonged to
the French had recognized the mainland as included in it; and
so do also the early French maps. Its prodigious shrinkage was
simply the consequence of its possession by an alien. Other
questions of limits, more important and equally perilous,
called loudly for solution. What line should separate Canada
and her western dependencies from the British colonies?
Various principles of demarcation were suggested, of which the
most prominent was a geographical one. All countries watered
by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and
the Mississippi were to belong to her. This would have planted
her in the heart of New York and along the crests of the
Alleghanies, giving her all the interior of the continent, and
leaving nothing to England but a strip of sea-coast. Yet in
view of what France had achieved; of the patient gallantry of
her explorers, the zeal of her missionaries, the adventurous
hardihood of her bushrangers, revealing to civilized mankind
the existence of this wilderness world, while her rivals
plodded at their workshops, their farms, or their
fisheries,--in view of all this, her pretensions were moderate
and reasonable compared with those of England. The treaty of
Utrecht had declared the Iroquois, or Five Nations, to be
British subjects; therefore it was insisted that all countries
conquered by them belonged to the British Crown. But what was
an Iroquois conquest? The Iroquois rarely occupied the
countries they overran. ... But the range of their war-parties
was prodigious; and the English laid claim to every mountain,
forest or prairie where an Iroquois had taken a scalp.
{371}
This would give them not only the country between the
Alleghanies and the Mississippi, but also that between Lake
Huron and the Ottawa, thus reducing Canada to the patch on the
American map now represented by the province of Quebec,--or
rather by a part of it, since the extension of Acadia to the
St. Lawrence would cut off the present counties of Gaspé,
Rimouski and Bonaventure. Indeed, among the advocates of
British claims there were those who denied that France had any
rights whatever on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Such
being the attitude of the two contestants, it was plain there
was no resort but the last argument of kings. Peace must be
won with the sword."
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 5 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
T. C. Haliburton, Account of Nova Scotia,
volume 1, pages 143-149.
See, also, NOVA SCOTIA:
CANADA: A. D. 1749-1755.
Relative to the very dubious English claim based on treaties
with the Iroquois,
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (April).
Plans of the English against the French.
"While the negotiations [between England and France, at Paris]
were pending, Braddock arrived in the Chesapeake. In March
[1755] he reached Williamsburgh, and visited Annapolis; on the
14th of April, he, with Commodore Keppel, held a congress at
Alexandria. There were present, of the American governors,
Shirley, next to Braddock in military rank; Delancey, of New
York; Morris, of Pennsylvania; Sharpe, of Maryland; and
Dinwiddie, of Virginia. ... Between England and France peace
existed under ratified treaties; it was proposed not to invade
Canada, but to repel encroachments on the frontier. For this
end, four expeditions were concerted by Braddock at
Alexandria. Lawrence, the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia,
was to reduce that province according to the English
interpretation of its boundaries; Johnson [afterwards Sir
William Johnson, of New York] from his long acquaintance with
the Six Nations, was selected to enroll Mohawk warriors in
British pay and lead them with provincial militia against
Crown Point; Shirley proposed to drive the French from
Niagara; the commander-in-chief was to recover the Ohio
valley."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last
revision), volume 2, pages 416-419.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (June).
French disaster at Sea.
Frustrated attempt against Nova Scotia.
The arrival of Dieskau at Quebec.
"In 1754, France fully awakened to the fact that England not
only intended to maintain her position in the wilds of
America, but likewise by sea. She equipped an armament under
the command of admirals Macnamara and Bois de la Mothe, of 18
ships of the line and 9 frigates, having on board, ostensibly
for Canada, eleven battalions of troops under General Dieskau,
an 'élève' of Marshal Saxe. England, apprised of this force
being sent, despatched Vice-Admiral Boscawen with 11 ships of
the line and one frigate to intercept it en route. Both sailed
about the same time, the 22d of April, 1755. The French
ambassador at London being duly notified, replied: 'That his
royal master would consider the first gun fired at sea in a
hostile manner to be a declaration of war.' The esoteric
instructions of the French fleet were to rendezvous at
Chebuctou Harbour, destroy Halifax, and then proceed to
Annapolis for the same purpose. While the instructions were of
necessity secret, it was well known in Acadia that an attempt
would be made by France to recover possession of the province.
It was this fleet, so eagerly expected by the Acadians, that
gave rise to the insolent manner in which they addressed the
Council at Halifax, and which led to an immediate removal of
their arms and subsequent dispersal. Owing to misadventure,
some of the French fleet under Macnamara had to put back to
Brest; the remainder met the English off the coast of
Newfoundland [June 8] in a dense fog; avoiding an engagement,
several of them escaped by taking the northern route via
Belleisle ... successfully reaching their 'harbour of refuge,'
Louisbourg. The 'Lys' and the 'Alcyde' were sufficiently
unfortunate to be compelled to face the guns of the English
frigates 'Dunkirk' and 'Defiance,' and after five hours close
engagement the 'Lys' struck its colors ... followed by the
'Alcyde,' when Hocquart in command became Boscawen's prisoner
by sea for the third time, together with £76,000 sterling in
money, eight companies of soldiers and several officers and
engineers. The unexpected rencontre with Boscawen's fleet, the
loss of two of their vessels, and the knowledge that the
garrison at Halifax was considerably reinforced by the forces
brought out by Boscawen, caused the abandonment of all
attempts to recover Acadia. Dieskau, after landing a few
regiments at Louisbourg, proceeded to Quebec."
G. E. Hart, The Fall of New France, pages 51-54.
ALSO IN:
J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain,
volume 5, pages 104-106.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (July).
Defeat of Braddock's Expedition against Fort Duquesne.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (August-October):
The abortive expedition against Niagara.
According to the English plan of campaign, concerted with
Braddock at Alexandria, Governor Shirley was to lead an army
for the conquest of Niagara; but his march westward ended at
Oswego. "Colonel Philip Schuyler led the first regiment of the
expedition. Boats were built at Oswego to convey 600 men by
lake. Shirley followed by way of the Mohawk, and reached
Oswego August 21. He was delayed from various causes, and in
October a council of war decided that the attack on Niagara
should be postponed for a year. Shirley was to have met
Braddock in victory at Niagara. Both branches of the plan had
been shattered. The great western scheme sank to a mere
strengthening of the defences of Oswego. Colonel Mercer was
left in command of a garrison of 700 men, with instructions to
build two new forts, and General Shirley took the remainder of
his force back to Albany. The pitiful failure led to
recriminations relative to the causes of the fatal delays."
E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 1, chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 26 (volume 2).
{372}
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (September).
The Battle of Lake George and defeat of Dieskau.
"The expedition against Crown Point on Lake Champlain, had
been intrusted to General William Johnson. His troops were
drawn principally from Massachusetts and Connecticut; a
regiment from New Hampshire joined them at Albany. At the head
of boat navigation on the Hudson, a fort was built which, in
honor of their commander, whom they reverenced as 'a brave and
virtuous man,' the soldiers named Fort Lyman. But when Johnson
assumed the command he ungenerously changed the name to Fort
Edward. Leaving a garrison in this fort; Johnson moved with
about 5,000 men to the head of Lake George, and there formed a
camp, intending to descend into Lake Champlain. Hendrick, the
celebrated Mohawk chief, with his warriors, were among these
troops. Israel Putnam, too, was there, as a captain, and John
Stark as a lieutenant, each taking lessons in warfare. The
French were not idle; the district of Montreal made the most
strenuous exertions to meet the invading foe. All the men who
were able to bear arms were called into active service; so
that, to gather in the harvest, their places were supplied by
men from other districts. The energetic Baron Dieskau
resolved, by a bold attack, to terrify the invaders. Taking
with him 200 regulars, and about 1,200 Canadians and Indians,
he set out to capture Fort Edward; but, as he drew near, the
Indians heard that it was defended by cannon, which they
greatly dreaded, and they refused to advance. He now changed
his plan, and resolved to attack Johnson's camp, which was
supposed to be without cannon. Meantime scouts had reported to
Johnson that they had seen roads made through the woods in the
direction of Fort Edward. Not knowing the movements of
Dieskau, a detachment of 1,000 men, under Colonel Ephraim
Williams, of Massachusetts, and 200 Mohawks, under Hendrick,
marched to relieve that post. The French had information of
their approach and placed themselves in ambush. They were
concealed among the thick bushes of a swamp, on the one side,
and rocks and trees on the other. The English recklessly
marched into the defile. They were vigorously attacked [Sept.
5] and thrown into confusion. Hendrick was almost instantly
killed, and in a short time Williams fell also. The detachment
commenced to retreat, occasionally halting to check their
pursuers. The firing was heard in the camp; as the sound drew
nearer and nearer, it was evident the detachment was
retreating. The drums beat to arms, trees were hastily felled
and thrown together to form a breastwork, upon which were
placed a few cannon, just arrived from the Hudson. Scarcely
were these preparations made when the panting fugitives
appeared in sight, hotly pursued by the French and Indians.
Intending to enter the camp with the fugitives, Dieskau urged
forward his men with the greatest impetuosity. The moment the
fugitives were past the muzzles of the cannon they opened with
a tremendous shower of grape, which scattered the terrified
Indians and checked the Canadians, but the regulars pushed on.
A determined contest ensued, which lasted five hours, until
the regulars were nearly all slain, while the Indians and
Canadians did but little execution; they remained at a
respectful distance among the trees. At length the enemy began
to retreat, and the Americans leaped over the breastworks and
pursued them with great vigor. That same evening, after the
pursuit had ceased, as the French were retreating, they were
suddenly attacked with great spirit by the New Hampshire
regiment, which was on its way from Fort Edward. They were so
panic stricken by this new assault that they abandoned
everything and fled for their lives. Dieskau had been wounded
once or twice at the commencement of the battle, but he never
left his post. ... He was taken prisoner, kindly treated, and
sent to England, where he died. Johnson was slightly wounded
at the commencement of the battle, and prudently retired from
danger. To General Lyman belongs the honor of the victory, yet
Johnson, in his report of the battle, did not even mention his
name. Johnson, for his exertions on that day, was made a
baronet, and received from royal favor a gift of $25,000. He
had friends at court, but Lyman was unknown. Colonel Ephraim
Williams, who fell in this battle, while passing through
Albany, had taken the precaution to make his will, in which he
bequeathed property to found a free school in western
Massachusetts. That school has since grown into Williams
College."
J. H. Patton, Concise History of the American People,
volume 1, chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 1, chapter 16.
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapter 9.
CANADA: A. D. 1755 (October-November).
Removal and dispersion in exile of the French Acadians.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
CANADA: A. D. 1756.
Formal declarations of war.
The "Seven Years War" of Europe, called the "French and Indian
War" in British America.
Montcalm sent from France.
"On the 18th of May, 1756, England, after a year of open
hostility, at length declared war. She had attacked France by
land and sea, turned loose her ships to prey on French
commerce, and brought some 300 prizes into her ports. It was
the act of a weak government, supplying by spasms of violence
what it lacked in considerate resolution. France, no match for
her amphibious enemy in the game of marine depredation, cried
out in horror; and to emphasize her complaints and signalize a
pretended good faith which her acts had belied, ostentatiously
released a British frigate captured by her cruisers. She in
her turn declared war on the 9th of June: and now began the
most terrible conflict of the 18th century; one that convulsed
Europe and shook America, India, the coasts of Africa, and the
islands of the sea."
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755, and after;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after.
"Henceforth France was to turn her strength against her
European foes; and the American war, the occasion of the
universal outbreak, was to hold in her eyes a second place.
... Still, something must be done for the American war; at
least there must be a new general to replace Dieskau. None of
the court favorites wanted a command in the backwoods, and the
minister of war was free to choose whom he would. His choice
fell on Louis Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm-Gozon de Saint
Véran. ... The Chevalier de Lévis, afterwards Marshal of
France, was named as his second in command. ... The troops
destined for Canada were only two battalions, one belonging to
the regiment of La Sarre, and the other to that of Royal
Roussillon. Louis XV. and Pompadour sent 100,000 men to fight
the battles of Austria, and could spare but 1,200 to
reinforce. New France." Montcalm, who reached Quebec in May,
was placed in difficult relations with the governor-general,
Vaudreuil, by the fact that the latter held command of the
colonial troops. The forces in New France, were of three
kinds,--"the 'troupes de terre,' troops of the line, or
regulars from France; the 'troupes de la marine,' or colony
regulars; and lastly the militia.
{373}
The first consisted of the four battalions that had come over with
Dieskau and the two that had come with Montcalm, comprising in
all a little less than 3,000 men. Besides these, the
battalions of Artois and Bourgogne, to the number of 1,100
men, were in garrison at Louisbourg." This constituted
Montcalm's command. The colony regulars and the militia
remained subject to the orders of the governor, who manifested
an early jealousy of Montcalm. The former troops numbered less
than 2,000 men. "All the effective male population of Canada,
from 15 years to 60, was enrolled in the militia. ... In 1750
the militia of all ranks counted about 13,000; and eight years
later the number had increased to about 15,000. Until the last
two years of the war, those employed in actual warfare were
but few. ... To the white fighting force of the colony are to
be added the red men. ... The military situation was somewhat
perplexing. Iroquois spies had brought reports of great
preparations on the part of the English. As neither party
dared offend these wavering tribes, their warriors could pass
with impunity from one to the other, and were paid by each for
bringing information, not always trustworthy. They declared
that the English were gathering in force to renew the attempt
made by Johnson the year before against Crown Point and
Ticonderoga, as well as that made by Shirley against Forts
Frontenac and Niagara. Vaudreuil had spared no effort to meet
the double danger. Lotbinière, a Canadian engineer, had been
busied during the winter in fortifying Ticonderoga, while
Pouchot, a captain in the battalion of Béarn, had rebuilt
Niagara, and two French engineers were at work in
strengthening the defenses of Frontenac. ... Indians presently
brought word that 10,000 English were coming to attack
Ticonderoga." Both Montcalm and Lévis, with troops, "hastened
to the supposed scene of danger ... and reached Ticonderoga at
the end of June. They found the fort ... advanced towards
completion. It stood on the crown of the promontory. ... The
rampart consisted of two parallel walls ten feet apart, built
of the trunks of trees, and held together by transverse logs
dovetailed at both ends, the space between being filled with
earth and gravel well packed. Such was the first Fort
Ticonderoga, or Carillon,--a structure quite distinct from the
later fort of which the ruins still stand on the same spot.
... Ticonderoga was now the most advanced position of the
French, and Crown Point, which had before held that perilous
honor, was in the second line. ... The danger from the English
proved to be still remote. ... Meanwhile, at the head of Lake
George, the raw bands of ever-active New England, were
mustering for the fray."
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
W. Kingsford, History of Canada,
book 11, chapter 9 (volume 3).
CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
French successes.
Capture of Oswego and Fort William Henry.
Bloody work of the savage allies.
On the death of Braddock, Governor Shirley became
commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, "a
position for which he was not adapted by military knowledge.
... His military schemes for the season of 1756 were grand in
conception and theory, but disastrous failures in practice.
Ten thousand men were to advance against Crown Point--6, 000
for service on Lake Ontario, 3,000 for an attack on Fort
Duquesne, and 2,000 to advance up the river Kennebec, destroy
the settlement adjoining the Chaudière and descending the
mouth of that river within three miles of Quebec, keep all
that part of Canada in alarm. While each of these armies was
being put into motion, the season had become too far advanced
for action at any one point. Moreover, the British Government,
dissatisfied with a Provincial officer being at the head of its
army in America, determined upon sending out General Lord
Loudoun. While Shirley was preparing, Montcalm advanced
against the three forts at Oswego, the terror of the French in
the Iroquois country and which it had been their desire to
destroy for many years back; they likewise commanded the
entrance to Lake Ontario. The English had a garrison of 1,800
men in these divided between Fort Ontario ... Fort Oswego ...
and Fort George, or Rascal ... about a mile distant from each
other." Montcalm took all three of the forts without much
difficulty, and demolished them. "Shirley was much blamed for
this defeat and the failure of his projects, and lost both his
government and command, being succeeded by John Campbell,
fourth Earl of Loudoun, Baron Mauchlaw, one of the sixteen
peers of Scotland, with General Abercromby as second in
command--both notorious for previous incompetency. ... They
were sent out with considerable reinforcements, and had
transferred to them by Shirley 16,000 men in the field, of
whom 6,000 were regulars; but, with that masterly inactivity
and indecision for which Loudoun was most renowned, no further
movement was made this year. The year 1757 was not
distinguished by any military movements of much moment." An
intended attack on Louisbourg was postponed because of news
that a powerful French fleet held possession of its harbor and
that the garrison was very strong. "Montcalm, finding himself
free from attack, penetrated with his army of 7,606 men to
Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. Included were
2,000 Indians. The fort was garrisoned by 2,264 regulars under
Colonel Munroe of the 35th Regiment, and in the neighborhood
there was an additional force of 4,600 men under General Webb.
On the 3d of August the fort was invested and, after a summons
to surrender was rejected, the attack was begun and continued
with undiminished fervor until the 9th at noon, when a
capitulation was signed. General Webb did not join Munroe, as
he was instructed to do by Abercromby's plans, some cowardice
being attributed to him by contemporary writers. An incident
of the war which has given rise to a great deal of controversy
and ill-feeling up to the present moment, was the so-called
massacre at Fort William Henry, the outcome of the numerous
horde of savages the French allies had in the engagement. ...
On the morning following the surrender, the garrison was to
march out under a proper escort to protect them from injury at
the hands of the Indians. The evacuation had barely commenced,
when a repetition of the looting of the day previous, which
ensued immediately after the capitulation had been signed, was
attempted.
{374}
An effort being made by the escort to stop it, some drunken
Indians attacked the defile, which resulted in the murdering
and scalping of some 60 or 70 of the prisoners; maltreating
and robbing a large number of others. Upon a careful
investigation of the contemporary authorities, no blame
whatever can be attached to the good fame of the brave and
humane Montcalm or De Lévis. ... Fort George, or William
Henry, as it was indifferently called, like its compeer Fort
Oswego, was razed to the ground and the army retreated into
their winter quarters at Montreal. The termination of the year
left the French masters of Lakes Champlain and George,
together with the chain of great lakes connecting the St.
Lawrence with the Mississippi; also the undisturbed possession
of all the country in dispute west of the Alleghany
Mountains."
G. E. Hart, The Fall of New France, pages 70-79.
ALSO IN:
E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 2-3.
CANADA: A. D. 1758.
The loss of Louisbourg and Fort Du Quesne.
Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
"The affairs of Great Britain in North America wore a more
gloomy aspect, at the close of the campaign of 1757, than at
any former period. By the acquisition of fort William Henry,
the French had obtained complete possession of the lake
Champlain, and George. By the destruction of Oswego, they had
acquired the dominion of those lakes which connect the St.
Lawrence with the waters of the Mississippi, and unite Canada
to Louisiana. By means of fort Du Quêsne, they maintained
their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed
possession of the country west of the Allegheny mountains;
while the English settlers were driven to the blue ridge. The
great object of the war in that quarter was gained, and France
held the country for which hostilities had been commenced. ...
But this inglorious scene was about to be succeeded by one of
unrivalled brilliancy. ... The brightest era of British
history was to commence. ... The public voice had, at length,
made its way to the throne, and had forced, on the unwilling
monarch, a minister who has been justly deemed one of the
greatest men of the age in which he lived. ... In the summer
of 1757, an administration was formed, which conciliated the
great contending interests in parliament; and Mr. Pitt was
placed at its head. ... Possessing the public confidence
without limitation, he commanded all the resources of the
nation, and drew liberally from the public purse. ... In no
part of his majesty's dominions was the new administration
more popular than in his American colonies. ... The circular
letter of Mr. Pitt assured the several governors that, to
repair the losses and disappointments of the last inactive
campaign, the cabinet was determined to send a formidable
force, to operate by sea and land, against the French in
America; and he called upon them to raise as large bodies of
men, within their respective governments, as the number of
inhabitants might allow. ... The legislature of Massachusetts
agreed to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut 5,000; and New
Hampshire 3,000. ... Three expeditions were proposed. The
first was against Louisbourg; the second against Ticonderoga
and Crown Point; and the third against fort Du Quêsne. The
army destined against Louisbourg, consisting of 14,000 men,
was commanded by major general Amherst. [The expedition was
successful and Louisbourg fell, July 26, 1758.]"
See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
"The expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was
conducted by General Abercrombie in person. His army,
consisting of near 16,000 effectives, of whom 9,000 were
provincials, was attended by a formidable train of artillery,
and possessed every requisite to ensure success. On the 5th of
July he embarked on lake George, and reached the landing place
early the next morning. A disembarkation being effected
without opposition, the troops were immediately formed in four
columns, the British in the centre, and the provincials on the
flanks; in which order they marched towards the advanced guard
of the French, composed of' one battalion posted in a log
camp, which, on the approach of the English, made a
precipitate retreat. Abercrombie continued his march towards
Ticonderoga, with the intention of investing that place; but,
the woods being thick, and the guides unskilful, his columns
were thrown into confusion, and, in some measure, entangled
with each other. In this situation Lord Howe, at the head of
the right centre column, fell in with a part of the advanced
guard of the French; which, in retreating from lake George,
was likewise lost in the wood. He immediately attacked and
dispersed them; killing several, and taking 148 prisoners,
among whom were five officers. This small advantage was
purchased at a dear rate. Though only two officers, on the
side of the British, were killed, one of these was Lord Howe
himself, who fell on the first fire. This gallant young
nobleman had endeared himself to the whole army. ... Without
farther opposition, the English army took possession of the
post at the Saw Mills, within two miles of Ticonderoga. This
fortress [called Carillon by the French], which commands the
communication between the two lakes, is encompassed on three
sides by water, and secured in front by a morass. The ordinary
garrison amounting to 4,000 men, was stationed under the
cannon of the place, and covered by a breast-work, the
approach to which had been rendered extremely difficult by
trees felled in front, with their branches outward, many of
which were sharpened so as to answer the purpose of
chevaux-de-frize. This body of troops was rendered still more
formidable by its general than by its position. It was
commanded by the marquis de Montcalm. Having learned from his
prisoners the strength of the army under the walls of
Ticonderoga, and that a reinforcement of 3,000 men was daily
expected, general Abercrombie thought it advisable to storm
the place before this reinforcement should arrive. The troops
marched to the assault with great intrepidity; but their
utmost efforts could make no impression on the works. ...
After a contest of near four hours, and several repeated
attacks, general Abercrombie ordered a retreat. The army
retired to the camp from which it had marched in the morning;
and, the next day, resumed its former position on the south
side of lake George. In this rash attempt, the killed and
wounded of the English amounted to near 2,000 men, of whom not
quite 400 were provincials. The French were covered during the
whole action, and their loss was inconsiderable. Entirely
disconcerted by this unexpected and bloody repulse, General
Abercrombie relinquished his designs against Ticonderoga
and Crown Point.
{375}
Searching however for the means of repairing the misfortune,
if not the disgrace, sustained by his arms, he readily acceded
to a proposition made by colonel Bradstreet, for an expedition
against fort Frontignac. This fortress stands on the north
side of Ontario. ... Colonel Bradstreet embarked on the
Ontario at Oswego, and on the 25th of August, landed within
one mile of the fort. In two days, his batteries were opened
at so short a distance that almost every shell took effect;
and the governor, finding the place absolutely untenable,
surrendered at discretion. ... After destroying the fort and
vessels, and such stores as could not be brought off, colonel
Bradstreet returned to the army which undertook nothing
farther during the campaign. The demolition of Fort Frontignac
and of the stores which had been collected there, contributed
materially to the success of the expedition against fort Du
Quêsne. The conduct of this enterprise had been entrusted to
General Forbes, who marched from Philadelphia, about the
beginning of July, at the head of the main body of the army,
destined for this service, in order to join colonel Bouquet at
Raystown. So much time was employed in preparing to move from
this place, that the Virginia regulars, commanded by Colonel
Washington, were not ordered to join the British troops until
the month of September. ... Early in October general Forbes
moved from Raystown; but the obstructions to his march were so
great that he did not reach fort Du Quêsne until late in
November. The garrison, being deserted by the Indians, and too
weak to maintain the place against the formidable army which
was approaching, abandoned the fort the evening before the
arrival of the British, and escaped down the Ohio in boats.
The English placed a garrison in it, and changed its name to
Pittsburg, in compliment to their popular minister. The
acquisition of this post was of great importance to
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia."
J. Marshall, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States, volume 3, chapter 11.
B. Fernow, The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days, chapter 7.
Major R. Rogers, Journals, editor, by Hough, pages 115-123.
W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 24.
N. B. Craig, The Olden Time, volume 1, pages 177-200.
CANADA: A. D. 1759 (June-September).
The Fall of Quebec.
"Wolfe's name stood high in the esteem of all who were
qualified to judge, but, at the same time, it stood low in the
column of colonels in the Army List. The great minister [Pitt]
thought that the former counterbalanced the latter. ... One of
the last gazettes in the year 1758 announced the promotion of
Colonel James Wolfe to the rank of major-general, and his
appointment to the chief command of the expedition against
Quebec. About the middle of February, 1759, the squadron
sailed from England to Louisbourg, where the whole of the
British force destined for the River St. Lawrence was ordered
to assemble. ... Twenty-two ships of the line, five frigates,
and nineteen smaller vessels of war, with a crowd of
transports, were mustered under the orders of the admiral
[Saunders], and a detachment of artillery and engineers, and
ten battalions of infantry, with six companies of Rangers,
formed Wolfe's command; the right flank companies of the three
regiments which still garrisoned Louisbourg soon after joined
the army, and were formed into a corps called the Louisbourg
Grenadiers. The total of the land forces embarked were
somewhat under 8,000."
E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 9.
"Wolfe, with his 8,000 men, ascended the St. Lawrence in the
fleet in the month of June. With him came Brigadiers Monckton,
Townshend and Murray, youthful and brave like himself, and,
like himself, already schooled to arms. ... The Grenadiers of
the army were commanded by Colonel Guy Carleton, and part of
the light infantry by Lieutenant-Colonel William Howe, both
destined to celebrity in after years, in the annals of the
American revolution. Colonel Howe was brother of the gallant
Lord Howe, whose fall in the preceding year was so generally
lamented. Among the officers of the fleet was Jervis, the
future admiral, and ultimately Earl St. Vincent; and the
master of one of the ships was James Cook, afterwards renowned
as a discoverer. About the end of June, the troops debarked on
the large, populous, and well-cultivated Isle of Orleans, a
little below Quebec, and encamped in its fertile fields.
Quebec, the citadel of Canada, was strong by nature. It was
built round the point of a rocky promontory, and flanked by
precipices. ... The place was tolerably fortified, but art had
not yet rendered it, as at the present day, impregnable.
Montcalm commanded the post. His troops were more numerous
than the assailants; but the greater part of them were
Canadians, many of them inhabitants of Quebec; and he had a
host of savages. His forces were drawn out along the northern
shore below the city, from the River St. Charles to the Falls
of Montmorency, and their position was secured by deep
intrenchments. ... After much resistance, Wolfe established
batteries at the west point of the Isle of Orleans, and at
Point Levi, on the right (or south) bank of the St. Lawrence,
within cannon range of the city. ... Many houses were set on
fire in the upper town, the lower town was reduced to rubbish;
the main fort, however, remained unharmed. Anxious for a
decisive action, Wolfe, on the 9th of July, crossed over in
boats from the Isle of Orleans to the north bank of the St.
Lawrence, and encamped below the Montmorency. It was an
ill-judged position. ... On the 18th of July, Wolfe made a
reconnoitering expedition up the river, with two armed sloops,
and two transports with troops. He passed Quebec unharmed and
carefully noted the shores above it. Rugged cliffs rose almost
from the water's edge. ... He returned to Montmorency
disappointed, and resolved to attack Montcalm in his camp,
however difficult to be approached, and however strongly
posted. Townshend and Murray, with their brigades, were to
cross the Montmorency at low tide, below the falls, and storm
the redoubt thrown up in front of the ford. Monckton, at the
same time, was to cross, with part of his brigade in boats
from Point Levi. ... As usual in complicated orders, part were
misunderstood, or neglected, and confusion was the
consequence." The assault was repelled and Wolfe fell back
across the river, having lost four hundred men, with two
vessels, which run aground and were burned. He felt the
failure deeply, and his chagrin was increased by news of the
successes of his coadjutors at Ticonderoga and Niagara.
{376}
"The difficulties multiplying around him, and the delay of
General Amherst in hastening to his aid, preyed incessantly on
his spirits. ... The agitation of his mind, and his acute
sensibility, brought on a fever, which for some time
incapacitated him from taking the field. In the midst of his
illness he called a council of war, in which the whole plan of
operations was altered. It was determined to convey troops
above the town, and endeavor to make a diversion in that
direction, or draw Montcalm into the open field. ... The brief
Canadian summer was over; they were in the month of September.
The camp at Montmorency was broken up. The troops were
transported to Point Levi, leaving a sufficient number to man
the batteries on the Isle of Orleans. On the 5th and 6th of
September the embarkation took place above Point Levi, in
transports which had been sent for the purpose. Montcalm
detached De Bougainville with 1,500 men to keep along the
north shore above the town, watch the movements of the
squadron, and prevent a landing. To deceive him, Admiral
Holmes moved with the ships of war three leagues beyond the
place where the landing was to be attempted. He was to drop
down, however, in the night, and protect the landing. ... The
descent was made in flat-bottomed boats, past midnight, on the
13th of September. They dropped down silently, with the swift
current. 'Qui va la?' (who goes there?) cried a sentinel from
the shore. 'La France,' replied a captain in the first boat,
who understood the French language. 'A quel regiment?' was the
demand. 'De la Reine' (the queen's) replied the captain,
knowing that regiment was in De Bougainville's detachment.
Fortunately, a convoy of provisions was expected down from De
Bougainville's, which the sentinel supposed this to be.
'Passe,' cried he, and the boats glided on without further
challenge. The landing took place in a cove near Cape Diamond,
which still bears Wolfe's name. He had marked it in
reconnoitering, and saw that a cragged path straggled up from
it to the Heights of Abraham, which might be climbed, though
with difficulty, and that it appeared to be slightly guarded
at top. Wolfe was among the first that landed and ascended up
the steep and narrow path, where not more than two could go
abreast, and which had been broken up by cross ditches.
Colonel Howe, at the same time, with the light infantry and
Highlanders, scrambled up the woody precipices, helping
themselves by the roots and branches, and putting to flight a
sergeant's guard posted at the summit. Wolfe drew up the men
in order as they mounted; and by the break of day found
himself in possession of the fateful Plains of Abraham.
Montcalm was thunderstruck when word was brought to him in his
camp that the English were on the heights threatening the
weakest part of the town. Abandoning his intrenchments, he
hastened across the river St. Charles and ascended the
heights, which slope up gradually from its banks. His force
was equal in number to that of the English, but a great part
was made up of colony troops and savages. When he saw the
formidable host of regulars he had to contend with, he sent
off swift messengers to summon De Bougainville with his
detachment to his aid; and De Vaudreil to reinforce him with
1,500 men from the camp. In the meantime he prepared to flank
the left of the English line and force them to the opposite
precipices." In the memorable battle which ensued, Wolfe, who
led the English line, received, first, a musket ball in his
wrist, and soon afterward was struck by a second in the
breast. He was borne mortally wounded to the rear, and lived
just long enough to hear a cry from those around him that the
enemy ran. Giving a quick order for Webb's regiment to be
hurried down to the Charles River bridge and there obstruct
the French retreat, he turned upon his side, saying, "Now, God
be praised, I will die in peace," and expired. In the meantime
the French commander, Montcalm, had received his death-wound,
while striving to rally his flying troops. The victory of the
English was complete, and they hastened to fortify their
position on the Plains of Abraham, preparing to attack the
citadel. But, Montcalm dying of his wound the following
morning, no further defence of the place was undertaken. It
was surrendered on the 17th of September to General Townshend,
who had succeeded to the command.
W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 25.
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 27-28 (volume 2).
R. Wright, Life of Wolfe, chapter 21-23.
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,
1713-1783, chapter 35 (volume 4).
W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 6.
J. Knox, Historical Journal,
volume 1, pages 255-360; volume 2, pages 1-132.
CANADA: A. D. 1759 (July-August).
The fall of Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.
"For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal
supplies of men and money, and the American colonies,
encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised
large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as
commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three
expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux,
assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his
force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to
be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders.
Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to
descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army
before Quebec. ... Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received
warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a
small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not
expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to
sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more
important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the
alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from
Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of
two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two
battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined
by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their
march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a
difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under
Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post,
and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and
on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles
east of the mouth of the Niagara. ... Prideaux began his
trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from
the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle,
and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily
advancing the work ... when, on the 19th, he was killed by the
bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the
trenches, where he had gone to issue orders.
{377}
Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but
before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General
Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of
Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and
Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the
beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the
French officers and men being slain or captured. This took
from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following
day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut
off from communication with the east, and had given up a large
part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve
Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu'
Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel
Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The
detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked
by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation
(Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the
forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat
more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at
Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining
the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his
army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved
down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats,
bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men
had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats
nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard,
pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a
detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and
scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed
on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was
learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400
men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their
outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for
several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion,
during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the
burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the
French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and
Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops,
and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder.
... After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost
about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and
complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were
raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to
attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to
reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the
French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that
Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the
northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance
to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small
detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his
time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts,"
until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the
help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate
and useless preparations."
R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 9.
W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
volume 2, chapter 4.
CANADA: A. D. 1760.
The completion of the English conquest.
The end of "New France."
"Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet
completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken
Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure
to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and
the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm,
gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made
preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. ... After
several fruitless attacks had been made on the British
outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels
yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores
still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of
April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the
river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole
amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in
charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery,
and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men
had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered
in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten
miles away. Their position, however, had been very much
strengthened. ... De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the
27th advanced to within three miles of the city."
R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 21.
"On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city,
left the advantageous ground which he first occupied, and
hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under
Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being
surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine
train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear
to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it
more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis]
opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the
works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men,
labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to
light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened
to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and
prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the
city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my
love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the
Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the
15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or
seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every
happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing;
abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and
hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had
no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada
but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from
a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six
battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited
from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army
of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting
there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon
Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking
possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the
helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives
except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760,
he met before Montreal the army of Murray.
{378}
The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point;
and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George
was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. ... The
capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor,
against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was
said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes
Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the
Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the
terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was
thought of. ... On the fifth day after the capitulation,
Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to
the upper posts. ... The Indians on the lakes were at peace,
united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in
a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The
Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of
Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the
country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac
and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you
dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied
the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to
remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the
calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter
then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following
spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.
G. Bancroft, History of the United States.
(Author's last revision), volume 2, pages 522-524.
ALSO IN:
W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 7
(giving the Articles of Capitulation in full).
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 29-30 (volume 2).
CANADA: A. D. 1763.
Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
The Province of Quebec created.
Eleven years of military rule.
The Quebec Act of 1774.
Extension of Quebec Province to the
Ohio and the Mississippi.
"For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada
was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec,
Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three
departments into which General Amherst divided the country.
Military councils were established to administer law, though,
as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but
settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the
king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new
governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St.
John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen
Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland,
and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it
was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the
smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government
of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in
the letters-patent by which these governments were
constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and
consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as
was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the
King's immediate government.' ... No assembly, however, ever
met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take
the test oath, and the government of the province was carried
on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an
executive council, composed in the first instance of the two
lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief
justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others
chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to
1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly
on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws
actually in force. ... The province of Quebec remained for
eleven years under the system of government established by the
proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the
first time in Canadian affairs and made important
constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been
created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great
Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed
prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old
possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States
of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a
system of government was granted to Canada by the express
authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the
Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the
province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On
one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New
England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the
left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's
Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to
Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of
the province of Quebec. ... The Act of 1774 was exceedingly
unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies,
then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament,
however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust
the government of the province so as to conciliate the
majority of the people. ... The new constitution came into
force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons
for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation
of 1763 were 'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of
the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the
conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of
the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of
constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and
property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long
series of years, from the first establishment of the
province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics
should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only
the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was
entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed
by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an
assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than
twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the
power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief
for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare,
and good government of the province. They had no authority,
however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the
inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to
assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary
local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a
majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted
within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for
approval or disallowance.
{379}
It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy,
relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had
to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of
England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal
code which might have prevailed before 1764. ... Roman
Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with
perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their
'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as
professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic
population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many
years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and
Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was
inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord
Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of
twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."
J. G. Bourinot, Manual of Const. History of Canada,
chapter 2-3.
ALSO IN:
W. Houston, Documents Illustrative of the Canadian
Constitution, pages 90-96.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1774 (MARCH-APRIL).
CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Invasion by the revolting American colonists.
Loss and recovery of Montreal.
Successful defence of Quebec.
At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which
subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain,
the United States of America, it was believed among them that
Canada would join their movement if the British troops which
occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief,
the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775,
adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair
without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and
taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green
Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would
not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take
possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other
measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the
peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found
it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected
expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was
prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was Gen.
Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British
service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be
supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by
Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go
down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold,
with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River,
cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the
very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been
with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of
Canada--if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia
might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his
small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to
Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by
defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the
Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River
Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St.
Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent
intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now
defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of
November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy.
It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has
been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth
is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the
outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada
had been laid. ... General Carleton escaped from Montreal,
and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars
under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in
time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St.
Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The
energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec
is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over
dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached
consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The
Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current
being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks.
Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of
food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied
them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St.
Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at
Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of
Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec
men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men,
supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the
defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few
seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity
of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the
citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in
companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count
upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were,
however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of
December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by
escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought
to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and
Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St.
Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the
Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have
forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both
cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie
the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He
escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second
entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in
confusion. The American generals have been criticized by
experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing
on the Plains of Abraham. ... General Arnold remained before
Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men.
General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the
defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest
success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the
French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success.
Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early
in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and
Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men
of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides
artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to
Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade
encamped at Three Rivers.
{380}
The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers,
but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back
from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain,
and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying
Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been
before the first attack in the year before."
G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 6, section 3.
ALSO IN:
B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapter 19-29, and volume 2, chapter 1-4.
J. Sparks, Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold,
chapter 3-5 (Library of American Biog., volume 3).
J. Armstrong, Life of Richard Montgomery
(Lib. of American Biog., volume 1).
C. H. Jones, History of the Campaign
for the Conquest of Canada in 1776.
J. J. Henry, Arnold's Campaign against Quebec.
CANADA: A. D. 1776.
General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
CANADA: A. D. 1777.
Burgoyne's disastrous invasion of New York.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
CANADA: A. D 1783.
Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great
Britain and the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784.
Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United
States.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
CANADA: A. D. 1791
The Constitutional Act.
Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.
"In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province
into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so
drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in
Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in
Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who
urged that the separation of the English and French
inhabitants was most undesirable. ... The act was passed, and
is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. ... In each
province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a
Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor
had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to
reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon,
prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to
convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative
Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in
Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King
for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General.
The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s,
freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly
value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The
number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the
Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16
members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new
Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences
arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative
Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies,
differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still
went on between the French and English races. ... The
discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."
J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
pages 112-133.
D. Brymner, Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, appendix B.
CANADA: A. D. 1812-1815.
The War of Great Britain with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1815 (JANUARY).
CANADA: A. D. 1818.
Convention between Great Britain and the United States
relating to Fisheries, etc.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.
CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.
"The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of
the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the
loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada,
heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have
admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E.
loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its
political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its
prominent members belonged to the class which in the American
colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson,
and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to
destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the
American revolution. ... By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or
cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly
combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its
best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather
set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of
religion."
G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 10, section 2.
"Upper Canada ... has long been entirely governed by a party
commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family
Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party
designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very
little of family connection among the persons thus united. For
a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to
its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices,
by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive
Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it
maintained influence in the legislature by means of its
predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a
large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the
Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as
they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted
quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing
struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the
real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high
offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal
profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by
grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the
waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the
chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves
almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk
of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born
inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it
before the last war with the United States; the principal
members of it belong to the church of England, and the
maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one
of its distinguishing characteristics."
Earl of Durham, Report on the Affairs of British
North America, page 105.
"The influences which produced the Family Compact were not
confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar
results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or
another been a familiar one in all the British North American
colonies. ... The designation Family Compact, however, did not
owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists,
but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."
J. C. Dent, The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion,
chapter 3.
{381}
CANADA: A. D. 1837.
The Causes of discontent which produced rebellion.
"It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose.
A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the
legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the
majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by
the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The
home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious
and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management
of a colony--a 'British party' devoted to the so-called
interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of
command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority
in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions
of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as
to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their
service officials whom the representative' assembly had
condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their
salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The
representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the
Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by
appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to
be within their reach at the time. The colony--for indeed on
these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong,
was so near to being of one mind that we may take the
declarations of public meetings as representing the
colony--demanded that the legislative council should be made
elective, and that the colonial government should not be
allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their
pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied
by refusing to listen to the proposal. ... It is not necessary to
suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were
in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt
that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the
mere differences of race. ... At last the representative
assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on
any further business. They formulated their grievances against
the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary
conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition
of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be
elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and
violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the
leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion
in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had
risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his
undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal
in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he
afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader
of the movement to protest against the policy of the
governors, and that of the Government by whom they were
sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which
undoubtedly rather strong language was used. ... Lord Gosford,
the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who
had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau
himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued
warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular
Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once
left the country; others against whom warrants were issued
were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their
friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who
have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements,
the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed
itself into open rebellion."
J. McCarthy, History of Our own Times, volume 1, chapter 3.
Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both
Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic
grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set
apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant
Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to
Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to
2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the
Province. Three objections were made against continuing these
Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart.
The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive
Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these
lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for
'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the
Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively
the Church of England, which was established by law in the
mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all
Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second
objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for
the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in
which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did
not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made,
every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not
cleared for years the people complained that they were not
utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform
civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and
people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. ... An
additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the
government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into
the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a
Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. ... But the
Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and
it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. ... Altogether the
issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley
Provinces and the Maritime Provinces ... and so it is not to
be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a
class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a
race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was
tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. ...
The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of
Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with
or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William
Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr.
Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."
W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, chapter 16.
ALSO IN:
J. McMullen, History of Canada, chapter 19-20.
Earl of Durham, Report and Dispatches.
Sir F. B. Head, Narrative.
Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the
grievances complained of in Lower Canada, (House of
Commons, February 20, 1837).
{382}
CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression.
The Burning of the Caroline.
"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the
constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put
down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak
in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of
the population was disaffected to the government, there were
some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was
completely trodden out. ... On the night of the 4th of
December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the
policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall,
and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the
Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm
came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the
command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque
figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar
to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours
had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among
the disaffected in the Home and London districts. ... The
alarm threw Toronto into commotion. ... The volunteers were
formed in the market square during the night and well armed.
In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were
not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and
discharged men from both the naval and military services. ...
Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had
occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were
driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day
and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of
the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the
House of Assembly ... raised a body of his friends and
adherents in the course of the night and following day, and,
seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to
Toronto. ... The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day,
at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the
Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept
during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and
till all danger was over. ... Mackenzie soon rallied his
scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above
Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of
American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of
a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence,
the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford
(where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the
command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel
Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at
Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in
length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the
Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides
with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over
the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous
leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the
Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an
American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A
small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the
insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy
Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other
military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide
whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to
destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United
States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American
port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel
Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at
night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf,
fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over
the Falls.
Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 12.
"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled
with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some
of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's
Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth.
But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and
after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even
Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were
allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected
to seats in the Canadian Assembly."
W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada.
chapter 16, section 15.
On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was
very commonly called "the Patriot War."
ALSO IN:
C. Lindsey, Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie,
volume 2.
J. C. Dent, Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion.
CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the
Caroline.
The McLeod Case.
The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A.. D.
1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great
Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an
American named Durfree was killed. The British government
avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary
measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van
Buren [President of the United States] went out of office
whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. ...
In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to
New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree,
and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and
thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and
the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause
immediate war. ... Our [the American] government was, of
course, greatly hampered in action ... by the fact that McLeod
was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York
courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States.
... Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President
Taylor] ... was hardly in office before he received a demand
from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal
was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act.
Mr. Webster determined that ... the only way to dispose of
McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him,
diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and
then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with
the British government. ... His first step was to instruct the
Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was
imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence,
furnishing them with authentic information that the
destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that
therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. ...
{383}
This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent
peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities,
who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general
government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York
in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to
release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's
instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for
trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our
government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when
McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was
a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was
killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the
way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened
at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions
between England and the United States.
H. C. Lodge, Daniel Webster, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Seward, Works, chapter 2, pages 547-588.
D. Webster. Works, volume 6, pages 247-269.
CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
Reunion of the provinces.
The opposition of races.
Clear Grits and Conservatives.
"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before:
it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province;
and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought
into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly
opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as
much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the
author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the
measure was directed against their nationality. But since the
Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been
superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the
protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to
the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed
under a Governor-General with a single legislature,
consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before,
of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House
elected by the people. Each province was to have the same
number of representatives, although the population of the
French Province was at that time much larger than that of the
British Province. The French language was proscribed in
official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent,
constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes,
necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only
weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and
even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most
likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of
organised party. ... The French ... 'had the wisdom,' as their
manual of history ... complacently observes, 'to remain united
among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a
happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.'
Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to
their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to
their leaders, became politically dominant. The British
factions began to bid against each other for their support,
and were presently at their feet. ... The statute proscribing
the use of the French language in official proceedings was
repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual.
The Premiership was divided between the English and the French
leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double
name--'the Lafontaine--Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The
French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of
patronage; of public funds they got more than their full
share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods
they contributed far less than their quota to the public
revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper
Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in
contravention of the principle of religious equality and
severance of the Church from the State. In time it was
recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have
a majority from each section of the Province. This practically
almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French
nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually
the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since
been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party,
playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege,
by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing
the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common
treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going
Reformers from the Moderates ... gave birth to the party of
the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a
Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the
secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that
question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to
French and Roman Catholic influence. ... A change had thus
come over the character and relations of parties. French
Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis
of the Conservative party. British Canada became the
stronghold of the Liberals. ... A period of tricky
combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now
commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was
its fruit."
Goldwin Smith, Canada and the Canadian Question, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the
Canadian Const., pages 149-185.
J. G. Bourinot,
Manual of the Const. History of Canada, chapter 5.
CANADA: A. D. 1842.
Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the
Ashburton Treaty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its
abrogation.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.
CANADA: A. D. 1864.
The St. Albans Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
Fenian invasions.
The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its
most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from
the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian
volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866,
expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an
insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900
men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on
the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at
destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the
Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th
battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway.
Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the
Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian
forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with
a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded.
{384}
Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching
to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee
to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men,
was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the
skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie,
and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian
expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital
at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border
from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back.
The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against
the American authorities. ... A Fenian attack was led by Colonel
O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was
easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to
arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again
made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against
Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American
commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed
the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and,
though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota,
the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure.
These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in
effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the
maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different
points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of
citizen soldiery however resulted."
G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, pages 468-470.
ALSO IN:
G. T. Denison, Jr., The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie.
Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion.
Official Report of Gen. John O'Neill.
CANADA: A. D. 1867.
Federation of the provinces of British North America in the
Dominion of Canada.
The constitution of the Dominion.
"The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867,
when the provinces of British North America were brought more
closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in
their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865,
the administration of government in Canada had become
surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing
character. ... Parties at last were so equally balanced on
account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the
vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration,
and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years.
From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there
were no less than five different ministries in charge of the
public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically
at a dead-lock. ... It was at this critical juncture of
affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in
the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the
most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition
government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all
the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case
of the failure of the larger scheme. ... It was a happy
coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were
about considering a maritime union at the time the leading
statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling
their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once
availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates
at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the
decision to consider the question of the larger union at
Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates
from all the British North American provinces assembled in
conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample
deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions,
which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions
were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in
January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended
from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses
agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty
praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for
the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the
provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had
to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in
consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited
itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the
financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the
terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and
"the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
being at last in full accord, through the action of their
respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on
the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where
it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties,
and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the
royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new
constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually
celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first
parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same
year. ... The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted
only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec
[Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th
section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the
admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament
of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia.
Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any
time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian
Parliament. ... The title of Dominion did not appear in the
Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her
Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the
federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was
arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the
union bill was finally drafted."
T. G. Bourinot, Manual of Const. History of Canada,
chapter 6-7 (with foot-note).
"The Federal Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is
contained in the British North America Act, 1867, a statute of
the British Parliament (30 Vict., c. 3). I note a few of the
many points in which it deserves to be compared with that of
the United States. The Federal or Dominion Government is
conducted on the so-called 'Cabinet system' of England, i. e.,
the Ministry sit in Parliament, and hold office at the
pleasure of the House of Commons. The Governor-General
[appointed by the Crown] is in the position of an
irresponsible and permanent executive similar to that of the
Crown of Great Britain, acting on the advice of responsible
ministers.
{385}
He can dissolve Parliament. The Upper House or Senate, is
composed of 78 persons, nominated for life by the
Governor-General, i. e., the Ministry. The House of Commons
has at present 210 members, who are elected for five years.
Both senators and members receive salaries. The Senate has
very little power or influence. The Governor-General has a
veto but rarely exercises it, and may reserve a bill for the
Queen's pleasure. The judges, not only of the Federal or
Dominion Courts, but also of the provinces, are appointed by
the Crown, i. e., by the Dominion Ministry, and hold for good
behaviour. Each of the Provinces, at present [1888] seven in
number, has a legislature of its own, which, however, consists
in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba, of one House only,
and a Lieutenant-Governor, with a right of veto on the acts of
the legislature, which he seldom exercises. Members of the
Dominion Parliament cannot sit in a Provincial legislature.
The Governor-General has a right of disallowing acts of a
Provincial legislature, and sometimes exerts it, especially
when a legislature is deemed to have exceeded its
constitutional competence. In each of the Provinces there is a
responsible Ministry, working on the Cabinet system of
England. The distribution of matters within the competence of
the Dominion Parliament and of the Provincial legislatures
respectively, bears a general resemblance to that existing in
the United States; but there is this remarkable distinction,
that whereas in the United States, Congress has only the
powers actually granted to it, the State legislatures
retaining all such powers as have not been taken from them,
the Dominion Parliament has a general power of legislation,
restricted only by the grant of certain specific and exclusive
powers to the Provincial legislatures. Criminal law is
reserved for the Dominion Parliament; and no Province has the
right to maintain a military force. Questions as to the
constitutionality of a statute, whether of the Dominion
Parliament or of a Provincial legislature, come before the
courts in the ordinary way, and if appealed, before the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The
Constitution of the Dominion was never submitted to a popular
vote, and can be altered only by the British Parliament,
except as regards certain points left to its own legislature.
... There exists no power of amending the Provincial
constitutions by popular vote similar to that which the
peoples of the several States exercise in the United States."
J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth,
volume 1, appendix., note (B) to chapter 80.
See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.
ALSO IN:
J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada (with text of Act
in appendix) Parl. Debate on Confederation, 3d Sess., 8th Prov.
Parliament of Canada.
W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,
pages 186-224.
CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Territory.
Admission or Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward's
Island to the Dominion.
"In 1869 ... the Dominion was enlarged by the acquisition of
the famous Hudson's Bay Territory. When the charter of the
Hudson's Bay Company expired in 1869, Lord Granville, then
Colonial Secretary, proposed that the chief part of the
Company's territories should be transferred to the Dominion
for £300,000; and the proposition was agreed to on both sides.
The Hudson's Bay Charter dated from the reign of Charles II.
The region to which it referred carries some of its history
imprinted in its names. Prince Rupert was at the head of the
association incorporated by the Charter into the Hudson's Bay
Company. The name of Rupert's Land perpetuates his memory. ...
The Hudson's Bay Company obtained from King Charles, by virtue
of the Charter in 1670, the sole and absolute government of
the vast watershed of Hudson's Bay, the Rupert's Land of the
Charter, on condition of paying yearly to the King and his
successors 'two elks and two black beavers,' 'whensoever and
all often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to
enter into the said countries, territories and regions.' The
Hudson's Bay Company was opposed by the North West Fur Company
in 1788, which fought them for a long time with Indians and
law, with the tomahawk of the red man and the legal judgment
of a Romilly or a Keating. In 1812 Lord Selkirk founded the
Red River Company. This interloper on the battle field was
harassed by the North West Company, and it was not until 1821,
when the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies--impoverished
by their long warfare-amalgamated their interests, that the
Red River settlers were able to reap their harvests in peace,
disturbed only by occasional plagues of locusts and
blackbirds. In 1885, on Lord Selkirk's death, the Hudson's Bay
Company bought the settlement from his executors. It had been
under their sway before that, having been committed to their
care by Lord Selkirk during his lifetime. The privilege of
exclusive trading east of the Rocky Mountains was conferred by
Royal license for twenty-one years in May 1888, and some ten
years later the Company received a grant of Vancouver's Island
for the term of ten years from 1849 to 1859. The Hudson's Bay
Company were always careful to foster the idea that their
territory was chiefly wilderness, and discountenanced the
reports of its fertility and fitness for colonisation which
were from time to time brought to the ears of the English
Government. In 1857, at the instance of Mr. Labouchere, a
Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to
enquire into the state of the British possessions under the
Company's administration. Various Government expeditions, and
the publication of many Blue Books, enlightened the public
mind as to the real nature of those tracts of land which the
council from the Fenchurch Street house declared to be so
desolate. ... During the sittings of the Committee there was
cited in evidence a petition from 575 Red River settlers to
the Legislative Assembly of Canada demanding British
protection. This appeal was a proceeding curiously at variance
with the later action of the settlement. When in 1869 the chief
part of the territories was transferred to Canada, on the
proposition of Earl Granville, the Red River country rose in
rebellion, and refused to receive the new Governor. Louis
Riel, the insurgent chief, seized on Fort Garry and the
Company's treasury, and proclaimed the independence of the
settlement. Sir Garnet, then Colonel, Wolseley, was sent in
command of an expedition which reached Fort Garry on August
28, when the insurgents submitted without resistance, and the
district received the name of Manitoba."
J. McCarthy, History of our own Times,
chapter 55 (volume 4).
{386}
Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were admitted to the
Dominion Confederation May 12, 1870; British Columbia, July
20, 1871; Prince Edward Island, July 1, 1873.
J. McCoun, Manitoba and the Great North West.
ALSO IN:
G. M. Adam, The Canadian Northwest, chapter 1-13
G. L. Huyshe, The Red River Expedition.
W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, page 313.
J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.
G. E. Ellis, The Hudson Bay Company (Narrative and
Critical History of America, volume 8).
See, also, BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871,
and NORTHWEST TERRITORIES of CANADA.
CANADA: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
CANADA: A. D. 1877.
The Halifax Fishery Award.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
CANADA: A. D. 1885-1888.
Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.
Renewed controversies.
The rejected Treaty.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
CANAI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CANARES, The.
See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CANARY ISLANDS, Discovery of the.
The first great step in African exploration "was the discovery
of the Canary Islands. These were the 'Elysian fields' and
'Fortunate islands' of antiquity. Perhaps there is no country
in the world that has been so many times discovered,
conquered, and invaded, or so much fabled about, as these
islands. There is scarcely a nation upon earth of any maritime
repute that has not had to do with them. Phœnicians,
Carthaginians, Romans, Moors, Genoese, Normans, Portuguese,
and Spaniards of every province (Aragonese, Castilians,
Gallicians, Biscayans, Andalucians) have all made their
appearance in these islands. The Carthaginians are said to
have discovered them, and to have reserved them as an asylum
in case of extreme danger to the state. Sertorius, the Roman
general who partook the fallen fortunes of Marius is said to
have meditated retreat to these 'islands of the blessed,' and
by some writers is supposed to have gone there. Juba, the
Mauritanian prince, son of the Jupa celebrated by Sallust,
sent ships to examine them, and has left a description of
them. Then came the death of empires, and darkness fell upon
the human race, at least upon the records of their history.
When the world revived, and especially when the use of the
loadstone began to be known among mariners, the Canary Islands
were again discovered. Petrarch is referred to by Viera to
prove that the Genoese sent out an expedition to these
islands. Las Casas mentions that an English or French vessel
bound from France or England to Spain was driven by contrary
winds to the Canary Islands, and on its return spread abroad
in France an account of the voyage."
A. Helps, Spanish Conquest, book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, note E.
CANAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CANCELLARIUS.
See CHANCELLOR.
CANDAHAR.
Siege and relief of English forces (1880).
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
CANDIA.
This is the name of the principal town in the island of Crete,
but has been often applied to Crete itself.
See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669, where an account is given of
the so-called "War of Candia";
also CRETE: A. D. 823.
CANDRAGUPTA, OR CHANDRAGUPTA,
The empire of.
See INDIA.: B. C. 327-312, and 312-.
CANGI, The.
A tribe in early Britain which occupied the westerly part of
Modern Carnarvonshire.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CANICHANAS, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CANIENGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
CANNÆ Battles of (B. C. 216).
See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND. (B. C. 88).
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
CANNENEFATES, The.
"On the other bank of the Rhine [on the right bank] next to
the Batavi, in the modern Kennemer district (north Holland,
beyond Amsterdam) dwelt the Cannenefates, closely related to
them but less numerous; they are not merely named among the
tribes subjugated by Tiberius, but were also treated like the
Batavi in the furnishing of soldiers."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.
CANNING, Lord, The Indian administration of, A. D. 1856-1862.
CANNING MINISTRY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
CANOPUS, Decree of.
An important inscribed stone found in 1865 at San, or Tanis,
in Egypt, which is a monument of the reign of Ptolemy
Euergetes, who ascended the throne in 246 B. C. It gives "in
hieroglyphics and Greek (the demotic version is on the edge) a
decree of the priests assembled at Canopus for their yearly
salutation of the king. When they were so assembled, in his
ninth year, his infant daughter Berenice, fell sick and died,
and there was great lamentation over her. The decree first
recounts the generous conduct and prowess of the king, who had
conquered all his enemies abroad, and had brought back from
Persia all the statues of the gods carried off in old time
from Egypt by foreign kings. He had also, in a great
threatening of famine, when the Nile had failed to rise to its
full amount, imported vast quantities of corn from Cyprus,
Phœnicia, &c., and fed his people. Consequently divine honours
are to be paid to him and his queen as 'Benefactor-Gods' in
all the temples of Egypt, and feasts are to be held in their
honour. ... This great inscription, far more perfect and
considerably older than the Rosetta Stone, can now be cited as
the clearest proof of Champollion's reading of the
hieroglyphics."
J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire., chapter 15, note.
{387}
CANOSSA, Henry IV. at.
In the conflict which arose between the German Emperor, Henry
IV. (then crowned only as King of the Romans) and Pope Gregory
VII. (the inflexible Hildebrand), the former was placed at a
great disadvantage by revolts and discontents in his own
Germanic dominions. When, therefore, on the 22d of February,
A. D. 1076, the audacious pontiff pronounced against the king
his tremendous sentence, not only of excommunication, but of
deposition, releasing all Christians from allegiance to him,
he addressed a large party, both in Germany and Italy, who
were more than willing to accept an excuse for depriving Henry
of his crown. This party controlled a diet held at Tribur, in
October, which declared that his forfeiture of the throne
would be made irrevocable if he did not procure from the pope
a release from his excommunication before the coming
anniversary of its pronunciation, in February. A diet to be
held then at Augsburg, under the presidency of the pope, would
determine the affairs of the Empire. With characteristic
energy, Henry resolved to make his way to the pope, in person,
and to become reconciled with him, before the Augsburg
meeting. Accompanied by the queen, her child, and a few
attendants, he crossed the Alps, with great hardship and
danger, in the midst of an uncommonly cold and snowy winter.
Meantime, the pope had started upon his journey to Augsburg.
Hearing on the way of Henry's movement to meet him, not
desiring the encounter, and distrusting, moreover, the
intentions of his enemy, he took refuge in the strong fortress
of Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the Apennines. To
that mountain retreat the desperate king pressed his way. "It
was January 21, 1077, when Henry arrived at Canossa; the cold
was severe and the snow lay deep. He was lodged at the foot of
the castle-steep, and had an interview with the countess
Matilda [mistress of the castle, and devoted friend of the
pope], Hugh, abbot of Clugny, and others, in the Chapel of St.
Nicolas, of which no traces now remain. Three days were spent
in debating terms of reconciliation; Matilda and Hugh
interceded with the pope on the king's behalf, but Gregory was
inexorable; unless Henry surrendered the crown into the pope's
hands the ban should not be taken off. Henry could not stoop
so low as this, but he made up his mind to play the part of a
penitent suppliant. Early on the morning of January 25 he
mounted the winding, rocky path, until he reached the
uppermost of the three walls, the one which enclosed the
castle yard. And here, before the gateway which still exists,
and perpetuates in its name, 'Porta di penitenza,' the memory
of this strange event, the king, barefoot, and clad in a
coarse woolen shirt, stood knocking for admittance. But he
knocked in vain: from morning till evening the heir of the
Roman Empire stood shivering outside the fast-closed door. Two
more days he climbed the rugged path and stood weeping and
imploring to be admitted." At last, the iron-willed pontiff
consented to a parley, and an agreement was brought about by
which Henry was released from excommunication, but the
question of his crown was left for future settlement. In the
end he gained nothing by his extraordinary abasement of
himself. Many of his supporters were alienated by it; a rival
king was elected. Gathering all his energies, Henry then stood
his ground and made a fight in which even Gregory fled before
him; but it was all to no avail. The triumph remained with the
priests.
W. R. W. Stephens, Hildebrand and His Times, chapter 11-15.
ALSO IN:
A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory VII., book 5.
See, also,
PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
ROME: 1081-1084.
CANTABRIA, Becomes Bardulia and Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
CANTABRIANS AND ASTURIANS, The.
The Cantabrians were an ancient people in the north of Spain,
inhabiting a region to the west of the Asturians. They were
not conquered by the Romans until the reign of Augustus, who
led an expedition against them in person, B. C. 27, but was
forced by illness to commit the campaign to his lieutenants.
The Cantabrians submitted soon after being defeated in a great
battle at Vellica, near the sources of the Ebro; but in 22 B.
C. they joined the Asturians in a desperate revolt, which was
not subdued until three years later.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 34.
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 2.
See APPENDIX A, V. 1.
CANTÆ, The.
A tribe in ancient Caledonia.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CANTERBURY. The murder of Becket (1170).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
CANTERBURY PRIMACY, Origin of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
CANTII, The.
The tribe of ancient Britons which occupied the region of Kent.
See BRITAIN. CELTIC TRIBES.
CANTON: A. D. 1839-1842.
The Opium War.
Ransom of the city from English assault.
Its port opened to British trade.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
CANTON: A. D. 1856-1857.
Bombardment by the English.
Capture by the English and French.
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
CANTONS, Latin.
See GENS, ROMAN;
also ALBA.
CANTONS, Swiss.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
CANULEIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 445.
CANUTE, OR CNUT,
King of England, A. D.1017-1035,
and King of Denmark, A. D. 1018-1035.
Canute II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1080-1086.
Canute III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1147-1156.
Canute IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1182-1202.
CANZACA.
See ECBATANA.
CANZACA, OR SHIZ, Battle of.
A battle fought A. D. 591, by the Romans, under Narses,
supporting the cause of Chosroës II. king of Persia, against a
usurper Bahram, who had driven him from his throne. Bahram was
defeated and Chosroës restored.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 23.
CAP OF LIBERTY, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1497.
Discovery by John Cabot.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1504.
Named by the fishermen from Brittany.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1713.
Possession confirmed to France.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
{388}
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.
The fortification of Louisbourg.
After the surrender of Placentia or Plaisance, in
Newfoundland, to England, under the treaty of Utrecht (see
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713), the French government determined to
fortify strongly some suitable harbor on the island of Cape
Breton for a naval station, and especially for the protection
of the fisheries of France on the neighboring coasts. The
harbor known previously as Havre a l' Anglois was chosen for
the purpose. "When the French government decided in favour of
Havre a l' Anglois its name was changed to Louisbourg, in
honour of the king; and, to mark the value set upon Cape
Breton it was called Isle Royale, which it retained until its
final conquest in 1758, when its ancient name was resumed." In
1720 the fortifications were commenced, and the work of their
construction was prosecuted with energy and with unstinted
liberality for more than twenty years. "Even the English
colonies contributed a great proportion of the materials used
in their construction. When Messrs. Newton and Bradstreet, who
were sent to confer with M. de St. Ovide [to remonstrate
against the supplying of arms to the Indians in Nova Scotia]
... returned to Annapolis, they reported that during their
short stay at Louisbourg, in 1725, fourteen colonial vessels,
belonging chiefly to New England, arrived there with cargoes
of boards, timber and bricks. ... Louisbourg [described, with
a plan, in the work here quoted] ... had, between the years
1720 and 1745, cost the French nation the enormous sum of
30,000,000 livres, or £1,200,000 sterling; nevertheless, as
Dussieux informs us, the fortifications were still unfinished,
and likely to remain so, because the cost had far exceeded the
estimates; and it was found such a large garrison would be
required for their defence that the government had abandoned
the idea of completing them according to the original design."
R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, letters 9-11.
"The fort was built of stone, with walls more than 30 feet
high, and a ditch 80 feet wide, over which was a communication
with the town by a drawbridge. It had six bastions and three
batteries, with platforms for 148 cannon and six mortars. On
an islet, which was flanked on one side by a shoal, a battery
of 30 guns, 28 pounders, defended the entrance of the harbor,
which was about 400 yards wide, and was also commanded from
within by the Grand or Royal Battery, mounting as many guns,
of the calibre of 42 pounds. The fort ... was a safe
rendezvous and refuge for French fleets and privateers,
sailing in the Western Hemisphere. It commanded the maritime
way into Canada, and it watched the English settlements all
along the coast. It was a standing threat to the great
business of New England seamen, which was the fishery on the
banks."
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).
"'So great was its strength that it was called the Dunkirk of
America. It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens.
That such a city rose upon a low and desolate island in the
infancy of American colonization appears incredible;
explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the
period.'"
C. B. Elliott, The U. S. and the New England Fisheries, page 18.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1744.
Outbreak of the Third Inter-Colonial War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1745.
Conquest by the New Englanders.
Fall of Louisbourg.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1748.
Restored to France.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
The final capture and destruction of Louisbourg, by the English.
"In May, 1758 [during the Seven Years War,--see CANADA: A. D.
1750-1753 and after], a powerful fleet, under command of
Admiral Boscawen, arrived at Halifax for the purpose of
recapturing a place [Louisbourg] which ought never to have
been given up. The fleet consisted of 23 ships of the line and
18 frigates, besides transports, and when it left Halifax it
numbered 157 vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery
Amherst, of upward of 12,000 men. The French forces at
Louisbourg were much inferior, and consisted of only 8 ships
of the line and 3 frigates, and of about 4,000 soldiers. The
English fleet set sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on
the 8th of June a landing was effected in Gabarus Bay. The
next day the attack began, and after a sharp conflict the
French abandoned and destroyed two important batteries. The
siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was not
until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the
terms of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners
of war and to be sent to England, and the English acquired 218
cannon and 18 mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition
and military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured
or destroyed; but their crews, to the number of upward of
2,600 men, were included in the capitulation. Two years later,
at the beginning of 1760, orders were sent from England to
demolish the fortress, render the harbor impracticable, and
transport the garrison and stores to Halifax. These orders
were carried out so effectually that few traces of its
fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by
fishermen."
C. C. Smith, The Wars on the Seaboard
(Narrative and Critical History of Am., volume 5, chapter 7).
ALSO IN:
F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 19 (volume 2).
See, also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.
Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.
Added to the government of Nova Scotia.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
----------CAPE BRETON ISLAND: End----------
CAPE COLONY.
See SOUTH AFRICA.
CAPE ST. VINCENT, Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
CAPETIANS,
Origin and crowning of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 861, and 877-987.
CAPHARSALAMA, Battle of.
One of the victories of the Jewish patriot, Judas Maccabæus
over the Syrian general Nicanor, B. C. 162.
Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 10.
CAPHTOR.
An ancient Phœnician settlement on the coast of the Nile
Delta. "From an early period the whole of this district had
been colonised by the Phœnicians, and as Phœnicia itself was
called Keft by the Egyptians, the part of Egypt in which they
had settled went by the name of Keft-ur, or 'Greater
Phœnicia.'"
A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 2.
On the other hand, Ewald and other writers say that "the
Philistines came from Caphtor," and that "this now obsolete
name probably designated either the whole or a part of Crete."
CAPHYÆ, Battle of.
Fought B. C. 220 in the Social War of the Achæan and Ætolian
Leagues. The forces of the former were totally routed.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63.
{389}
CAPITOLINE HILL AT ROME.
The Capitol.
"In prehistoric times this hill was called the Mons Saturnius,
see Varro, Lin. Lat., volume 41; its name being connected with
that legendary 'golden age' when Saturn himself reigned in
Italy. ... This hill, which, like the other hills of Rome, has
had its contour much altered by cutting away and levelling,
consists of a mass of tufa rock harder in structure than that
of the Palatine hill. It appears once to have been surrounded
by cliffs, very steep at most places, and had only approaches
on one side--that towards the Forum. ... The top of the hill
is shaped into two peaks of about equal height, one of which
was known as the Capitolium, and the other as the Arx, or
Citadel. ... The Capitolium was also in early time known as
the 'Mars Tarpeius,' so called from the familiar legend of the
treachery of Tarpeia. ... In later times the name 'rupes
Tarpeia' was applied, not to the whole peak, but to a part of
its cliff which faced towards the 'Vicus Jugarius' and the
'Forum Magnum.' The identification of that part of the
Tarpeian rock, which was used for the execution of criminals,
according to a very primitive custom, is now almost
impossible. At one place the cliff of the Capitolium is quite
perpendicular, and has been cut very carefully into an upright
even surface; a deep groove, about a foot wide, runs up the
face of this cutting, and there are many rock-cut chambers
excavated in this part of the cliff, some openings into which
appear in the face of the rock. This is popularly though
erroneously known as the Tarpeian rock. ... The perpendicular
cliff was once very much higher than it is at present, as
there is a great accumulation of rubbish at its foot. ... That
this cliff cannot be the Tarpeian rock where criminals were
executed is shown by Dionysius (viii. 78, and vii. 35), who
expressly says that this took place in the sight of people in
the Forum Magnum, so that the popular Rupes Tarpeia is on the
wrong side of the hill."
J. H. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1885, chapter 7.
See, also, SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, and GENS, ROMAN.
CAPITULARIES.
"It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies
only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word
'capitula,' 'little chapters,' equally applies to all the laws
of the Frank kings. ... Charlemagne, in his capitularies, did
anything but legislate. Capitularies are, properly speaking,
the whole acts of his government, public acts of all kinds by
which he manifested his authority."
F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 21.
ALSO IN:
E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the
Middle Ages, book 2.
CAPITULATION OF CHARLES V.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.
CAPO D'ISTRIA, Count, The Assassination of.
See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
CAPPADOCIA.
See MITHRIDATIC WARS.
CAPS, Party of the.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
CAPTAL.
A title, derived from "capitalis," originally equivalent to
count, and anciently borne by several lords in Aquitaine.
"Towards the 14th century there were no more than two captals
acknowledged, that of Buch and that of Franc."
Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 158, note.
CAPTIVITY, Prince of the.
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
CAPTIVITY OF THE JEWS, The.
See JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
CAPUA.
Capua, originally an Etruscan city, called Vulturnum, was
taken by the Samnites, B. C. 424, and was afterwards a city in
which Etruscan and neighboring Greek influences were mixed in
their effect on a barbarous new population. "Capua became by
its commerce and agriculture the second city in Italy in point
of size--the first in point of wealth and luxury. The deep
demoralization in which, according to the accounts of the
ancients, that city surpassed all others in Italy, is
especially reflected in the mercenary recruiting and in the
gladiatorial sports, both of which pre-eminently flourished in
Capua. Nowhere did recruiting officers find so numerous a
concourse as in this metropolis of demoralized civilization.
... The gladiatorial sports ... if they did not originate,
were at any rate carried to perfection in Capua. There, sets
of gladiators made their appearance even during banquets."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 5.
CAPUA: B. C. 343.
Surrender to the Romans.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
CAPUA: B. C. 216-211.
Welcome to Hannibal.
Siege and capture by the Romans.
The city repeopled.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
CAPUA: A. D. 800-1016.
The Lombard principality.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
CAPUA: A. D. 1501.
Capture, sack and massacre by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
----------CAPUA: End----------
CAPUCHINS, The.
"The Capuchins were only a branch of the great Franciscan
order, and their mode of life a modification of its Rule.
Among the Franciscans the severity of their Rule had early
become a subject of discussion, which finally led to a
secession of some of the members, of whom Matteo de' Bassi, of
the convent of Montefalcone was the leading spirit. These were
the rigorists who desired to restore the primitive austerities
of the Order. They began by a change of dress, adding to the
usual monastic habit a 'cappuccio,' or pointed hood, which
Matteo claimed was of the same pattern as that worn by St.
Francis. By the bull 'Religionis zelus' (1528), Matteo
obtained from Pope Clement VII. leave for himself and his
companions to wear this peculiar dress; to allow their beards
to grow; to live in hermitages, according to the rule of St.
Francis, and to devote themselves chiefly to the reclaiming of
great sinners. Paul III. afterwards gave them permission to
settle wheresoever they liked. Consistently with the austerity
of their professions, their churches were unadorned, and their
convents built in the simplest style. They became very
serviceable to the Church, and their fearlessness and
assiduity in waiting upon the sick during the plague, which
ravaged the whole of Italy, made them extremely popular."
J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 455.
CAPUCHONS, OR CAPUTIATI.
See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.
CARABOBO, Battles of (1821-1822).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
CARACALLA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-217.
CARACCAS: A. D. 1812.
Destruction by earthquake.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
CARAFFA, Cardinal (Pope Paul IV.) and the Counter Reformation.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563, and 1555-1603.
{390}
CARAS, OR CARANS, OR CARANQUIS, The.
See ECUADOR.
CARAUSIUS, Revolt of.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
CARAVELS.--GALEONS, Etc.
"The term caravel was originally given to ships navigated
wholly by sails as distinguished from the galley propelled by
oars. It has been applied to a great variety of vessels of
different size and construction. The caravels of the New World
discoverers may be generally described as long narrow boats of
from 20 to 100 tons burden, with three or four masts of about
equal height carrying sometimes square and sometimes lateen
sails, the fourth mast set at the heel of the bow-sprit
carrying square sails. They were usually half-decked, and
adorned with the lofty forecastle and loftier poop of the day.
The latter constituted over that part of the vessel a double
or treble deck, which was pierced for cannon. ... The galera
was a vessel of low bulwarks, navigated by sails and oars,
usually twenty or thirty oars on either side, four or five
oarsmen to a bench. ... The galeaza was the largest class of
galera, or craft propelled wholly or in part by oars. ... A
galeota was a small galera, having only 16 or 20 oarsmen on a
side, and two masts. The galeon was a large armed merchant
vessel with high bulwarks, three or four decks, with two or
three masts, square rigged, spreading courses and top-sails,
and sometimes top-gallant sails. ... Those which plied between
Acapulco and Manila were from 1,200 to 2,000 tons burden. A
galeoncillo was a small galeon. The carac was a large carrying
vessel, the one intended for Columbus' second voyage being
1,250 toneles or 1,500 tons. A nao, or navio, was a large ship
with high bulwarks and three masts. A nave was a vessel with
deck and sails, the former distinguishing it from the barca,
and the absence of oars from a galera. The bergantin, or brig,
had low bulwarks. ... The name brigantine was applied in
America also to an open flat-bottomed boat, which usually
carried one sail and from 8 to 16 men."
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 187, foot-note.
See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
CARBERRY, Mary Stuart's surrender at.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
CARBONARI, Origin and character of the.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1808-1809.
CARCHEMISH.
See HITTITES, THE.
CARCHEMISH, Battle of.
Fought, B. C. 604, between the armies of Necho, the Egyptian
Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince of Babylon.
Necho, being defeated, was driven back to Egypt and stripped
of all his Syrian conquests.
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 2, chapter 4.
CARDADEN, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
CARDINAL INFANT, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
CARDINALS, College of.
See CURIA, THE ROMAN (PAPAL),
and PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
CARDUCHI, The.
"South of the lake [Lake of Van, in Asia Minor] lay the
Carduchi, whom the later Greeks call the Gordyæans and
Gordyenes; but among the Armenians they were known as
Kordu, among the Syrians as Kardu. These are the ancestors
of the modern Kurds, a nation also of the Aryan stock."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 12.
See, also, GORDYENE.
Under Saladin and the Ayonbite dynasty the Kurds played an
important part in mediæval history.
See SALADIN, EMPIRE OF.
CARGILLITES, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
CARHAM, Battle of.
Fought and won by an army of Scots, under King Malcolm,
invading the then English earldom of Bernicia, A. D. 1018, and
securing the annexation of Lothian to the Scottish kingdom.
The battlefield was near that on which Flodden was afterwards
fought.
E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 6, section 2.
CARIANS, The.
"The Carians may be called the doubles of the Leleges. They
are termed the 'speakers of a barbarous tongue,' and yet, on
the other hand, Apollo is said to have spoken Carian. As a
people of pirates clad in bronze they once upon a time had
their day in the Archipelago, and, like the Normans of the
Middle Ages, swooped down from the sea to desolate the coasts;
but their real home was in Asia Minor, where their settlements
lay between those of Phrygians and Pisidians, and community of
religion united them with the Lydians and Mysians."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2.
The country of the Carians was the mountainous district in the
southwestern angle of Asia Minor, the coast of which is
indented with gulfs and frayed with long-projecting rocky
promontories. The island of Rhodes lies close to it on the
south. The Carians were subjugated by the Lydian King Crœsus,
and afterwards passed under the Persian yoke. The Persians
permitted the establishment of a vassal kingdom, under a
dynasty which fixed its capital at Halicarnassus, and made
that city one of the splendid Asiatic outposts of Greek art
and civilization, though always faithfully Persian in its
politics. It was to the memory of one of the Carian kings at
Halicarnassus, Mausolus, that the famous sepulchral monument,
which gave its name to all similar edifices, and which the
ancients counted among the seven wonders of the world, was
erected by his widow. Halicarnassus offered an obstinate
resistance to Alexander the Great and was destroyed by that
ruthless conqueror after it had succumbed to his siege.
Subsequently rebuilt, it never gained importance again. The
Turkish town of Budrum now occupies the site.
C. T. Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the Levant, volume 2.
See, also, HAMITES and DORIANS AND IONIANS.
CARIAY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496, and WEST INDIES.
CARIBS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.
CARILLON.
The French name of Fort Ticonderoga.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758.
CARINTHIA,
Early mediaeval history.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH-7TH CENTURIES,
and GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
CARINUS, Roman Emperor. A. D. 283-284.
CARIPUNA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.
CARISBROOK CASTLE, The flight of King Charles to.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST--DECEMBER).
CARIZMIANS.
See KHUAREZM.
CARL, OR KARL.
See ETHEL.--ETHELING.
{391}
CARLINGS.
See FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.
CARLISLE, Origin of.
See LUGUVALLIUM.
CARLISTS AND CHRISTINOS.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846, and 1873-1885.
CARLOMAN,
King of the Franks (East Franks-Germany-in association with
Louis III.), A. D. 876-881;
(Burgundy and Aquitaine), A. D. 879-894.
Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Franks, A. D. 741-747.
CARLOS.
See CHARLES.
CARLOVINGIANS.
See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.
CARLOWITZ, Peace of.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
CARLSBAD, Congress of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
CARMAGNOLE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
CARMANIANS, The.
"The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later
Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though
closely allied to the Persians and Medes. They wandered to and
fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, volume 5, book 8. chapter 3.
CARMATHIANS, The.
"In the 277th year of the Hegira [A. D. 890], and in the
neighbourhood of Cufa, an Arabian preacher of the name of
Carmath assumed the lofty and incomprehensible style of the
Guide, the Director, the Demonstration, the Word, the Holy
Ghost, the Camel, the Herald of the Messiah, who had conversed
with him in a human shape, and the representative of Mohammed
the son of Ali, of St. John the Baptist, and of the Angel
Gabriel." Carmath was one of the eastern proselytes of the
sect of the Ishmaileans or Ishmailites--the same from which
sprang the terrible secret order of the Assassins. He founded
another branch of the Ishmaileans, which, taking his name,
were called the Carmathians. The sect made rapid gains among
the Bedouins and were soon a formidable and uncontrollable
body. "After a bloody conflict they prevailed in the province
of Bahrein, along the Persian Gulf. Far and wide the tribes of
the desert were subject to the sceptre, or rather to the
sword, of Abu Said and his son Abu Taher; and these rebellious
imams could muster in the field 107,000 fanatics. ... The
cities of Racca and Baalbec, of Cufa and Bassorah, were taken
and pillaged; Bagdad was filled with consternation; and the
caliph trembled behind the veils of his palace. ... The rapine
of the Carmathians was sanctified by their aversion to the
worship of Mecca. They robbed a caravan of pilgrims, and
20,000 devout Moslems were abandoned on the burning sands to a
death of hunger and thirst. Another year [A. D. 929] they
suffered the pilgrims to proceed without interruption; but, in
the festival of devotion, Abu Taher stormed the holy city and
trampled on the most venerable relics of the Mahometan faith.
Thirty thousand citizens and strangers were put to the sword;
the sacred precincts were polluted by the burial of 3,000 dead
bodies; the well of Zemzen overflowed with blood; the golden
spout was forced from its place; the veil of the Caaba was
divided among these impious sectaries; and the black stone,
the first monument of the nation, was borne away in triumph to
their capital. After this deed of sacrilege and cruelty they
continued to infest the confines of Irak, Syria and Egypt; but
the vital principle of enthusiasm had withered at the root.
... It is needless to enquire into what factions they were
broken, or by whose swords they were finally extirpated. The
sect of the Carmathians may be considered as the second
visible cause of the decline and fall of the empire of the
caliphs."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52,
and note by Dr. Smith.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See, also, ASSASSINS.
CARMELITE FRIARS.
"About the middle of the [12th] century, one Berthold, a
Calabrian, with a few companions, migrated to Mount Carmel
[Palestine], and in the place where the prophet Elias of old
is said to have hid himself, built a humble cottage with a
chapel, in which he and his associates led a laborious and
solitary life. As others continued to unite themselves with
these residents on Mount Carmel, Albert the patriarch of
Jerusalem, near the commencement of the next century,
prescribed for them a rule of life; which the Pontiffs
afterwards sanctioned by their authority, and also changed in
various respects, and when it was found too rigorous and
burdensome, mitigated considerably. Such was the origin of the
celebrated order of Carmelites, or as it is commonly called
the order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel [and known in England as
the White Friars]; which subsequently passed from Syria into
Europe, and became one of the principal mendicant orders. The
Carmelites themselves reject with disdain this account of
their origin, and most strenuously contend that the holy
prophet Elias of the Old Testament, was the parent and founder
of their society. But they were able to persuade very few, (or
rather none out of their society), that their origin was so
ancient and illustrious."
J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, century 12, part 2, chapter 2, section 21.
ALSO IN:
G. Waddington, History of the Church, chapter 19, section 5.
J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History,
section 244 (volume 2).
E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, ch 5.
CARMIGNANO, Battle of (1796).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
CARNABII, OR CORNABII, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CARNAC.
See ABURY.
CARNATES, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
CARNEIAN FESTIVAL, The.
A Spartan festival, said to have been instituted B. C. 676.
"The Carneian festival fell in the Spartan month Carneius, the
Athenian Metageitnon, corresponding nearly to our August. It
was held in honour of Apollo Carneius, a deity worshipped from
very ancient times in the Peloponnese, especially at Amyclæ.
... It was of a warlike character, like the Athenian
Boedrömia."
G. Rawlinson, Note to Herodotus, book 7.
ALSO IN:
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 1.
CARNIANS, The.
See RHÆTIANS.
CARNIFEX FERRY, Battle of:
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
CARNONACÆ, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CARNOT, Lazare N. M., and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
to 1797 (SEPTEMBER), and 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
CARNOT, Sadi, President of the French Republic, 1887--.
{392}
CARNUTES, The.
The Carnutes were a tribe who occupied a region supposed to be
the center of Gaul. The modern city of Chartres stands in the
midst of it. The sacred general meeting place of the Druids
was in the country of the Carnutes.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 22.
See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
CAROLINAS, The.
See NORTH CAROLINA, and SOUTH CAROLINA.
CAROLINE, Queen, Trial of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
CAROLINE, The Burning of the.
See CANADA: A. D. 1887-1838, and 1840-1841.
CAROLINE BOOKS, The.
A work put forth by Charlemagne against image-worship, in
considerable sympathy with the views of the Eastern
Iconoclasts and against the decrees of the Second Council of
Nicaea (A. D. 787), is known as the Caroline Books. It is
supposed to have been chiefly the composition of the king’s
learned friend and counsellor; Alcuin, the Englishman.
J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 12.
CAROLINGIA.
On the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three
grandsons, A. D. 843, the western kingdom, which fell to
Charles, took for a time the name of Carolingia, as part of
Lothar’s middle kingdom took the name of Lotharingia, or
Lorraine. But the name died out, or was slowly superseded by
that of France.
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1.
CAROLINGIANS.
See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.
CARPET-BAGGERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
CARR DIKE.
A Roman work in Britain, formed for the draining of the
Lincolnshire Fens, and used, also, as a road.
H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 16.
CARRACKS, OR CARACS.
"A large species of merchant vessel, principally used in
coasting trade," among the Spaniards of the 15th and 16th
centuries.
W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 6, chapter 1 (volume 1), foot-note.
See, also, CARAVELS.
CARRARA FAMILY, The:
Its rise to sovereignty at Padua and its struggle with the
Visconti of Milan.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1838,
and MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
CARRHÆ, Battles of (B. C. 53).
See ROME: B. C. 57-52. (A. D. 297).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
CARRICK’S FORD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE—JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).
CARROCCIO, The.
"The militia of every city [in Lombardy, or northern Italy,
eleventh and twelfth centuries] was divided into separate
bodies, according to local partitions, each led by a
Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer. They fought on foot, and
assembled round the carroccio, a heavy car drawn by oxen, and
covered with the flags and armorial bearings of the city. A
high pole rose in the middle of this car, bearing the colours
and a Christ, which seemed to bless the army, with both arms
extended. A priest said daily mass at an altar placed in the
front of the car. The trumpeters of the community, seated on
the back part, sounded the charge and the retreat. It was
Heribert, archbishop of Milan, contemporary of Conrad the
Salic, who invented this car in imitation of the ark of
alliance, and caused it to be adopted at Milan. All the free
cities of Italy followed the example: this sacred car,
intrusted to the guardianship of the militia, gave them weight
and confidence."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 1.
CARTERET, Sir George, The Jersey Grant to.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667, to 1688-1738.
CARTERET’S MINISTRY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
CARTHAGE, The founding of.
Ethbaal, or Ithobaal, a priest of Astarte, acquired possession
of the throne of Tyre B. C. 917, deposing and putting to death
the legitimate prince, a descendant of Hiram, Solomon’s ally
and friend. The Jezebel of Jewish history, who married Ahab,
king of Israel, was the daughter of this king Ethbaal.
"Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877 B. C.).
After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and
Sicharbaal, both under age. ... Mutton died in the year 853 B.
C. and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a
daughter, Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to
his brother Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth.
Mutton had intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign
together, and thus the power really passed into the hands of
Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa. When Pygmalion reached his
sixteenth year the people transferred to him the sovereignty
of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death ... (846
B. C.). Elissa [or Dido, as she was also called] fled from
Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others who would
not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion. The exiles ... are
said ... to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the
neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and
there to have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be
covered by the skin of an ox. By dividing this into very thin
strips they obtained a piece of land sufficient to enable them
to build a fortress. This new dwelling-place, or the city
which grew up round this fortress, the wanderers called, in
reference to their old home, Karthada (Karta hadasha), i. e.,
'the new city,' the Karchedon of the Greeks, the Carthage of
the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have
arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid
tribute to the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their
soil."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 3, chapter 11.
CARTHAGE:
Divisions, Size and Population.
"The city proper, at the time at which it is best known to us,
the period of the Punic wars, consisted of the Byrsa or
Citadel quarter, a Greek word corrupted from the Canaanitish
Bozra, or Bostra, that is, a fort, and of the Cothon or
harbour quarter, so important in the history of the final
siege. To the north and west of these, and occupying all the
vast space between them and the isthmus behind, were the
Megara (Hebrew, Magurim), that is, the suburbs and gardens of
Carthage, which, with the city proper, covered an area of 23
miles in circumference. Its population must have been fully
proportioned to its size. Just before the third Punic war,
when its strength had been drained ... it contained 700,000
inhabitants."
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman, Carthage (Hist. Essays, 4th series).
{393}
CARTHAGE:
The Dominion of.
"All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage
and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second
centuries B. C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive
conclusions as to the fifth century B. C., especially in
reference to the general system pursued. The maximum of her
power was attained before her first war with Rome, which began
in 264 B. C.; the first and second Punic wars both of them
greatly reduced her strength and dominion. Yet in spite of
such reduction we learn that about 150 B. C. shortly before
the third Punic war, which ended in the capture and
depopulation of the city, not less than 700,000 souls were
computed in it, as occupants of a fortified circumference of
above twenty miles, covering a peninsula with its isthmus.
Upon this isthmus its citadel Byrsa was situated, surrounded
by a triple wall of its own, and crowned at its summit by a
magnificent temple of Æsculapius. The numerous population is
the more remarkable, since Utica (a considerable city,
colonized from Phœnicia more anciently than even Carthage
itself, and always independent of the Carthaginians, though in
the condition of an inferior and discontented ally) was within
the distance of seven miles from Carthage on the one side, and
Tunis seemingly not much further off on the other. Even at
that time, too, the Carthaginians are said to have possessed
300 tributary, cities in Libya. Yet this was but a small
fraction of the prodigious empire which had belonged to them
certainly in the fourth century B. C. and in all probability
also between 480-410 B. C. That empire extended eastward as
far as the Altars of the Philæni, near the Great
Syrtis,--westward, all along the coast to the Pillars of
Herakles and the western coast of Morocco. The line of coast
southeast of Carthage, as far as the bay called the Lesser
Syrtis, was proverbial (under the name of Byzacium and the
Emporia) for its fertility. Along this extensive line were
distributed indigenous Libyan tribes, living by agriculture;
and a mixed population called Liby-Phœnician. ... Of the
Liby-Phœnician towns the number is not known to us, but it
must have been prodigiously great. ... A few of the towns
along the coast,--Hippo, Utica, Adrumetum, Thapsus. Leptis,
&c.--were colonies from Tyre, like Carthage itself. ... Yet
the Carthaginians contrived in time to render every town
tributary, with the exception of Utica. ... At one time,
immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the
rural cultivators as much as one-half of their produce, and
doubled at one stroke the tribute levied upon the towns. ...
The native Carthaginians, though encouraged by honorary marks
to undertake ... military service were generally averse to it,
and sparingly employed. ... A chosen division of 2,500
citizens, men of wealth and family, formed what was called the
Sacred Band of Carthage distinguished for their bravery in the
field as well as for the splendour of their arms, and the gold
and silver plate which formed part of their baggage. We shall
find these citizen troops occasionally employed on service in
Sicily: but most part of the Carthaginian army consists of
Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, &c., a mingled host got together for
the occasion, discordant in language as well as in customs."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 81.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 480.
Invasion of Sicily.
Great defeat at Himera.
See SICILY: B. C. 480.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 409-405.
Invasions of Sicily.
Destruction of Selinus, Himera and Agrigentum.
See Sicily: B. C. 409-405.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 396.
Siege of Syracuse.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 383.
War with Syracuse.
See SICILY: B. C. 383.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 310-306.
Invasion by Agathokles.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 264-241.
The first war with Rome.
Expulsion from Sicily.
Loss of maritime supremacy.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
Revolt of the mercenaries.
At the close of the First Punic War, the veteran army of
mercenaries with which Hamilcar Barca had maintained himself
so long in Sicily--a motley gathering of Greeks, Ligurians,
Gauls, Iberians, Libyans and others--was sent over to Carthage
for the long arrears of pay due them and for their discharge.
The party in power in Carthage, being both incapable and mean,
and being also embarrassed by an empty treasury, exasperated
this dangerous body of men by delays and by attempts at
bargaining with them for a reduction of their claims, until a
general mutiny was provoked. The mercenaries, 20,000 strong,
with Spendius, a runaway Campanian slave, Matho, an African,
and Autaritus, a Gaul, for their leaders, marched from the
town of Sicca, where they were quartered, and camped near
Tunis, threatening Carthage. The government became
panic-stricken and took no measures which did not embolden the
mutineers and increase their demands. All the oppressed
African peoples in the Carthaginian domain rose to join the
revolt, and poured into the hands of the mercenaries the
tribute money which Carthage would have wrung from them. The
latter was soon brought to a state of sore distress, without
an army, without ships, and with its supplies of food mostly
cut off. The neighboring cities of Utica and Hippo Zarytus
were besieged. At length the Carthaginian government,
controlled by a party hostile to Hamilcar, was obliged to call
him to the command, but associated with him Hanno, his
bitterest personal enemy and the most incompetent leader of
the ruling faction. Hamilcar succeeded, after a desperate and
long struggle, in destroying the mutineers to almost the last
man, and in saving Carthage. But the war, which lasted more
than three years (B. C. 241-238), was merciless and horrible
beyond description. It was known to the ancients as the
"Truceless War" and the "Inexpiable War." The scenes and
circumstances of it have been extraordinarily pictured in
Flaubert's "Salammbo," which is one of the most revolting but
most powerful of historical romances.
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 4.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 237-202.
Hamilcar in Spain.
The second war with Rome.
Hannibal in Italy and Sicily.
Scipio in Africa.
The great defeat at Zama.
Loss of naval dominion and of Spain.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
{394}
CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.
Destruction by Scipio.
Carthage existed by Roman sufferance for fifty years after the
ending of the Second Punic War, and even recovered some
considerable prosperity in trade, though Rome took care that
her chances for recovery should be slight. When Hannibal gave
signs of being able to reform the government of the city and
to distinguish himself in statesmanship as he had immortalized
himself in war, Rome demanded him, and he escaped her chains
only by flight. When, even without Hannibal, Carthage slowly
repaired the broken fortunes of her merchants, there was an
enemy at her door always ready, at the bidding of Rome, to
plunder them afresh. This was Massinissa, the Numidian prince,
client and obedient servant of the Roman state. Again and
again the helpless Carthaginians appealed to Rome to protect
them from his depredations, and finally they ventured to
attempt the protection of themselves. Then the patient perfidy
of Roman statecraft grasped its reward. It had waited many
years for the provocations of Massinissa to work their effect;
the maddened Carthaginians had broken, at last, the hard
letter of the treaty of 201 by assailing the friend and ally
of Rome. The pretext sufficed for a new declaration of war,
with the fixed purpose of pressing it to the last extreme. Old
Cato, who had been crying in the ears of the Senate, "Carthago
delenda est," should have his wish. The doomed Carthaginians
were kept in ignorance of the fate decreed, until they had
been foully tricked into the surrender of their arms and the
whole armament of their city. But when they knew the dreadful
truth, they threw off all cowardice and rose to such a majesty
of spirit as had never been exhibited in their history before.
Without weapons, or engines or ships, until they made them
anew, they shut their gates and kept the Roman armies out for
more than two years. It was another Scipio, adopted grandson
and namesake of the conqueror of Hannibal, who finally entered
Carthage (B. C. 146), fought his way to its citadel, street by
street, and, against his own wish, by command of the
implacable senate at Rome, levelled its last building to the
earth, after sending the inhabitants who survived to be sold
as slaves.
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20.
ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapter 46.
CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.
Restoration by Cæsar.
"A settlement named Junonia, had been made at Carthage by C.
Gracchus [which furnished his enemies one of their weapons
against him, because, they said, he had drawn on himself the
curse of Scipio] and it appears that the city of Gracchus
still existed. Cæsar restored the old name, and, as Strabo
says, rebuilt the place: many Romans who preferred Carthage to
Rome were sent there, and some soldiers; and it is now, adds
Strabo [reign of Augustus] more populous than any town in
Libya."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 32.
CARTHAGE: 2d-4th Centuries.
The Christian Church.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
CARTHAGE: A. D. 439.
Taken by the Vandals.
Carthage was surprised and captured by the Vandals on the 9th
of Oct., A. D. 439,--nine years after the conquest and
destruction of the African provinces by Genseric began;--585
years after the ancient Carthage was destroyed by Scipio. "A
new city had risen from its ruins, with the title of a colony;
and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of
Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria or the
splendour of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in
the West--as the Rome (if we may use the style of
contemporaries) of the African world. ... The buildings of
Carthage were uniform and magnificent. A shady grove was
planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure
and capacious harbour, was subservient to the commercial
industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of
the circus and theatre were exhibited almost in the presence
of the barbarians. The reputation of the Carthaginians was not
equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic
faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character.
The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted
their manners. ... The King of the Vandals severely reformed
the vices of a voluptuous people. ... The lands of the
proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of
Carthage, were accurately measured and divided among the
barbarians."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 33.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
CARTHAGE: A. D. 533.
Taken by Belisarius.
See VANDALS. A. D. 533-534.
CARTHAGE: A. D. 534-558.
The Province of Africa after Justinian's conquest. "Successive
inroads [of the Moorish tribes] had reduced the province of
Africa to one-third of the measure of Italy; yet the Roman
emperors continued to reign above a century over Carthage and
the fruitful coast of the Mediterranean. But the victories and
the losses of Justinian were alike pernicious to mankind; and
such was the desolation of Africa that a stranger might wander
whole days without meeting the face either of a friend or an
enemy. The nation of the Vandals had disappeared. ... Their
numbers were infinitely surpassed by the number of the Moorish
families extirpated in a relentless war; and the same
destruction was retaliated on the Romans and their allies, who
perished by the climate, their mutual quarrels, and the rage
of the barbarians. When Procopius first landed [with
Belisarius, A. D. 533] he admired the populousness of the
cities and country, strenuously exercised in the labours of
commerce and agriculture. In less than twenty years that busy
scene was converted into a silent solitude; the wealthy
citizens escaped to Sicily and Constantinople; and the secret
historian has confidently affirmed that five millions of
Africans were consumed by the wars and government of the
Emperor Justinian."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{395}
CARTHAGE: A. D. 698.
Destruction by the Arabs.
"In the 77th year of the Hegira [A.. D. 698] ... Abd'almalec
[the Caliph] sent Hossan Ibn Anno'man, at the head of 40,000
choice troops, to carry out the scheme of African conquest
[which had languished for some years, during the civil wars
among the Moslems]. That general pressed forward at once with
his troops against the city of Carthage, which, though
declined from its ancient might and glory, was still an
important seaport, fortified with lofty walls, haughty towers
and powerful bulwarks, and had a numerous garrison of Greeks
and other Christians. Hossan proceeded according to the old
Arab mode; beleaguering and reducing it by a long siege; he
then assailed it by storm, scaled its lofty walls with
ladders, and made himself master of the place. Many of the
inhabitants fell by the edge of the sword; many escaped by sea
to Sicily and Spain. The walls were then demolished; the city
was given up to be plundered by the soldiery, the meanest of
whom was enriched by booty. ... The triumph of the Moslem host
was suddenly interrupted. While they were revelling in the
ravaged palaces of Carthage, a fleet appeared before the port;
snapped the strong chain which guarded the entrance, and
sailed into the harbor. It was a combined force of ships and
troops from Constantinople and Sicily; reinforced by Goths
from Spain; all under the command of the prefect John, a
patrician general of great valor and experience. Hossan felt
himself unable to cope with such a force; he withdrew, however
in good order, and conducted his troops laden with spoils to
Tripoli and Caerwan, and, having strongly posted them, he
awaited reinforcements from the Caliph. These arrived in
course of time by sea and land. Hossan again took the field;
encountered the prefect John, not far from Utica, defeated him
in a pitched battle and drove him to embark the wrecks of his
army and make all sail for Constantinople. Carthage was again
assailed by the victors, and now its desolation was complete,
for the vengeance of the Moslems gave that majestic city to
the flames. A heap of ruins and the remains of a noble
aqueduct are all the relics of a metropolis that once
valiantly contended for dominion with Rome."
W. Irving, Mahomet and his Successors, volume 2, chapter 54.
ALSO IN: N. Davis, Carthage and Her Remains.
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
----------CARTHAGE: End----------
CARTHAGE, Missouri, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).
CARTHAGENA (NEW CARTHAGE).
The founding of the city.
Hasdrubal, son-in-law and successor of Hamilcar Barca in Spain,
founded New Carthage--modern Carthagena--some time between 229
and 221 B. C. to be the capital of the Carthaginian dominion
in the Spanish peninsula.
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 9.
Capture by Scipio.
See PUNIC WAR. THE SECOND.
Settlement of the Alans in.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
----------CARTHAGENA: End----------
CARTHAGENA (South America): A. D. 1697.
Taken and sacked by the French.
One of the last enterprises of the French in the war which was
closed by the Peace of Ryswick--undertaken, in fact, while the
negotiations at Ryswick were in progress--was the storming and
sacking of Carthagena by a privateer squadron, from Brest,
commanded by rear-admiral Pointis, April, 1697. "The
inhabitants were allowed to carry away their effects; but all
the gold, silver, and precious stones were the prey of the
conqueror. Pointis ... reentered Brest safe and sound,
bringing back to his ship-owners more than ten millions. The
officers of the squadron and the privateers had well provided
for themselves besides, and the Spaniards had probably lost
more than twenty millions."
H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.
CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1741.
Attack and repulse of the English.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
CARTHAGENA A. D. 1815.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
----------CARTHAGENA (South America): End----------
CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
La Grande Chartreuse.
"St. Bruno, once a canon of St. Cunibert's, at Cologne, and
afterward chancellor of the metropolitan church of Rheims,
followed by six companions, founded a monastery near Grenoble,
amid the bleak and rugged mountains of the desert of Chartreuse
(A. D. 1084). The rule given by St. Bruno to his disciples was
founded upon that of St. Benedict, but with such modifications as
almost to make of it a new and particular one. The Carthusians
were very nearly akin to the monks of Vallis-Umbrosa and
Camaldoli; they led the same kind of life--the eremitical
joined to the cenobitic. Each religious had his own cell,
where he spent the week in solitude, and met the community
only on Sunday. ... Never, perhaps, had the monastic life
surrounded itself with such rigors and holy austerities. ...
The religious were bound to a life-long silence, having
renounced the world to hold converse with Heaven alone. Like
the solitaries of Thebais they never eat meat, and their
dress, as an additional penance, consisted only of a
sack-cloth garment. Manual labors, broken only by the exercise
of common prayer; a board on the bare earth for a couch; a
narrow cell, where the religious twice a day receives his
slight allowance of boiled herbs;--such is the life of pious
austerities of which the world knows not the heavenly
sweetness. For 800 years has this order continued to edify and
to serve the Church by the practice of the most sublime
virtue; and its very rigor seems to hold out a mysterious
attraction to pious souls. A congregation of women has
embraced the primitive rule."
J. E. Darras, History of the Catholic Church,
volume 3, chapter 4, par. 26, and chapter 10, par. 11.
From the account of a visit to the Grande Chartreuse, the
parent monastery, near Grenoble, made in 1667, by Dom Claude
Lancelot, of Port Royal, the following is taken: "All I had
heard of this astonishing seclusion falls infinitely short of
the reality. No adequate description can be given of the awful
magnificence of this dreary solitude. ... The desert of the
Chartreuse is wholly inaccessible but by one exceedingly
narrow defile. This pass, which is only a few feet wide, is
indeed truly tremendous. It winds between stupendous granite
rocks, which overhang above. ... The monastery itself is as
striking as the approach. ... On the west ... there is a
little space which ... is occupied by a dark grove of pine
trees; on every other side the rocks, which are as steep as so
many walls, are not more than ten yards from the convent. By
this means a dim and gloomy twilight perpetually reigns
within."
M. A. Schimmelpenninck, A tour to Alet and
La Grande Chartreuse, volume 1, pages 6-13.
CARTIER, Jacques,
Exploration of the St. Lawrence by.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and 1541-1603.
{396}
CARTOUCHE.
"It is impossible to travel in Upper Egypt without knowing
what is meant by a cartouche. A cartouche is that elongated
oval terminated by a straight line which is to be seen on
every wall of the Egyptian temples, and of which other
monuments also afford us numerous examples. The cartouche
always contains the name of a king or of a queen, or in
some cases the names of royal princesses. To designate a king
there are most frequently two cartouches side by side. The
first is called the prænomen, the second the nomen."
A. Mariette, Monuments of Upper Egypt, page 43.
CARTWRIGHT'S POWER LOOM, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
CARUCATE.
See HIDE OF LAND.
CARUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 282-283.
CASA MATA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CASALE: A. D. 1628-1631.
Siege by the Imperialists.
Final acquisition by France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
CASALE: A. D. 1640.
Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
CASALE: A. D. 1697.
Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
----------CASALE: End----------
CASALSECCO, Battle of (1427).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
CASAS, Bartolomé de las,
The humane labors of.
See SLAVERY: MODERN--OF THE INDIANS.
CASDIM.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
CASENA, Massacre at.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
CASHEL, Psalter of.
See TARA, THE HILL AND THE FEIS OF.
CASHEL, Synod of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
CASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
Conquest by Runjet Singh.
See SIKHS.
CASHMERE: A. D. 1846.
Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
Gholab Singh.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
----------CASHMERE: End----------
CASIMIR I., King of Poland, A. D. 1037-1058.
Casimir II., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1177-1194.
Casimir III. (called The Great), King of Poland, A. D. 1333-1370.
Casimir IV., King of Poland, A. D. 1445-1492.
Casimir, John, King of Poland, A. D. 1648-1668.
CASKET GIRLS, The.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
CASKET LETTERS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
CASPIAN GATES (PYLÆ CASPIÆ).
An important pass in the Elburz Mountains, so called by the
Greeks. It is identified with the pass known to the modern
Persians as the Girduni Sunlurmh, some fifty miles or more
eastward, or northeastward, from Teheran. "Through this pass
alone can armies proceed from Armenia, Media, or Persia
eastward, or from Turkestan, Khorasan and Afghanistan into the
more western parts of Asia. The position is therefore one of
primary importance. It was to guard it that Rhages was built
so near to the eastern end of its territory."
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
CASSANDER, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280;
also Greece: B. C. 321-312.
CASSANO, Battles of (1705 and 1799).
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
and France: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
CASSEL: A. D. 1383.
Burned by the French.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
CASSEL, Battles of (1328 and 1677).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1328,
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
CASSIAN ROAD.
One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from
Rome, by way of Sutrium and Clusium to Arretium and Florentia.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11.
CASSII, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons whose territory was near the Thames.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CASSITERIDES, The.
The "tin islands," from which the Phœnicians and Carthaginians
obtained their supply of tin. Some archæologists identify them
with the British islands, some with the Scilly islands, and
some with the islands in Vigo Bay, on the coast of Spain.
Charles Elton, Origins of English History.
ALSO IN: J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.
CASSOPIANS.
See EPIRUS.
CASTALIAN SPRING.
A spring which issued from between two peaks or cliffs of
Mount Parnassus and flowed downward in a cool stream past the
temple of Apollo at Delphi.
CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA, The.
"The caste system of India is not based upon an exclusive
descent as involving a difference of rank and culture, but
upon an exclusive descent as involving purity of blood. In the
old materialistic religion which prevailed so largely in the
ancient world, and was closely associated with sexual ideas,
the maintenance of purity of blood was regarded as a sacred
duty. The individual had no existence independent of the
family. Male or female, the individual was but a link in the
life of the family; and any intermixture would be followed by
the separation of the impure branch from the parent stem. In a
word, caste was the religion of the sexes, and as such exists
in India to this day. ... The Hindus are divided into an
infinite number of castes, according to their hereditary
trades and professions; but in the present day they are nearly
all comprehended in four great castes, namely, the Brahmans,
or priests; the Kshatriyas, or soldiers; the Vaisyas, or
merchants; and the Sudras, or servile class. The Brahmans are
the mouth of Brahma; the Kshatriyas are his arms; the Vaisyas
are his thighs; and the Sudras are his feet. The three first
castes of priests, soldiers, and merchants, are distinguished
from the fourth caste of Sudras by the thread, or paita, which
is worn depending from the left shoulder and resting on the
right side below the loins. The investiture usually takes
place between the eighth and twelfth year, and is known as the
second birth, and those who are invested are termed the 'twice
born.' It is difficult to say whether the thread indicates a
separation between the conquerors and the conquered; or
whether it originated in a religious investiture from which
the Sudras were excluded."
J. T. Wheeler, History of India, volume 3, pages 114 and 64.
{397}
"Among the delusions about modern India which it seems
impossible to kill, the belief still survives that, although
there have been many changes in the system of caste, it
remains true that the Hindu population is divided into the
four great classes described by Mann: Brahmans, Kshatriyas,
Vaisyas, and Sudras. In India itself this notion is fostered
by the more learned among the Brahmans, who love to make
themselves and others believe in the continuous existence of a
divinely constituted organization. To what extent the
religious and social systems shadowed forth in the ancient
Brahmanical literature had an actual existence it is difficult
to say, but it is certain that little remains of them now. The
Brahmans maintain their exceptional position; but no one can
discern the other great castes which Manu described. Excluding
the Brahmans, caste means for the most part hereditary
occupation, but it also often signifies a common origin of
tribe or race. India, in the words of Sir Henry Maine, is
divided into a vast number of independent, self-acting,
organised social groups--trading, manufacturing, cultivating.
In the enormous majority of instances, caste is only the name
for a number of practices which are followed by each one of a
multitude of groups of men, whether such a group be ancient
and natural or modern and artificial. As a rule, every trade,
every profession, every guild, every tribe, every class, is
also a caste; and the members of a caste not only have their
special objects of worship, selected from the Hindu Pantheon,
or adopted into it, but they exclusively eat together, and
exclusively intermarry.' Mr. Kitts, in his interesting
'Compendium of the Castes and Tribes of India,' compiled from
the Indian Census reports of 1881, enumerates 1929 different
castes. Forty-seven of these have each more than 1,000,000
members; twenty-one have 2,000,000 and upwards. The Brahmans,
Kunbis (agriculturists), and Chumars (workers in leather), are
the only three castes each of which has more than 10,000,000;
nearly 15 per cent. of the inhabitants of India are included
in these three castes. The distinctions and subdivisions of
caste are innumerable, and even the Brahmans, who have this in
common, that they are reverenced by the members of all other
castes, are as much divided among themselves as the rest.
There are nearly 14,000,000 Brahmans; according to Mr.
Sherring, in his work on 'Hindu Tribes and Castes,' there are
more than 1,800 Brahmanical subdivisions; and it constantly
happens that to a Brahman of some particular class or district
the pollution of eating with other Brahmans would be ruinous.
... The Brahmans have become so numerous that only a small
proportion can be employed in sacerdotal functions, and the
charity which it is a duty to bestow upon them could not,
however profuse, be sufficient for their support. They are
found in almost every occupation. They are soldiers,
cultivators, traders, and servants; they were very numerous in
the old Sepoy army, and the name of one of their subdivisions,
'Pande,' became the generic term by which the mutineers of
1857 were commonly known by the English in India. ... Mr.
Ibbetson, in his report on the census in the Punjab, shows how
completely it is true that caste is a social and not a
religious institution. Conversion to Mohammedanism, for
instance, does not necessarily affect the caste of the
convert."
Sir J. Strachey, India, lecture 8.
ALSO IN:
M. Williams, Religious Thought and Life in India, chapter 18.
Sir A. C. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, chapter 7.
Sir H. S. Maine, Village Communities, chapter 2.
CASTEL
See MOGONTIACUM.
CASTELAR AND REPUBLICANISM IN SPAIN.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873, and 1873-1885.
CASTELFIDARDO, Battle of (1860).
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
CASTELLANO.
See SPANISH COINS.
CASTIGLIONE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL,-OCTOBER).
CASTILE:
Early inhabitants of.
See CELTIBERIANS.
CASTILE: A. D. 713-1230.
Origin and rise of the kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737, and 1026-1230.
CASTILE: A. D. 1140.
Separation of Portugal as an independent kingdom.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
CASTILE: A. D. 1169.
The first Cortes.
The old monarchical constitution.
See CORTES.
CASTILE: A. D. 1212-1238.
Progress of arms.
Permanent union of the crown with that of Leon.
Conquest of Cordova.
Vassalage imposed on Granada and Murcia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
CASTILE: A. D. 1248-1350.
Reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned, and their three
successors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
CASTILE: A. D. 1366-1369.
Pedro the Cruel and the invasion of the English Black Prince.
See SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.
CASTILE: A. D. 1368-1476.
Under the house of Trastamare.
Discord and civil war.
The triumph of Queen Isabella and her marriage to
Ferdinand of Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
CASTILE: A. D. 1515.
Incorporation of Navarre with the kingdom.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
CASTILE: A. D. 1516.
The crown united with that of Aragon, by Joanna, mother of
Charles V.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
----------CASTILE: End----------
CASTILLA DEL ORO.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
CASTILLON, Battle of (1450).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
CASTLE ST. ANGELO.
The Mausoleum of Hadrian, begun by the emperor Hadrian, A. D.
135, and probably completed by Antoninus Pius, "owes its
preservation entirely to the peculiar fitness of its site and
shape for the purposes of a fortress, which it has served
since the time of Belisarius. ... After the burial of Marcus
Aurelius, the tomb was closed until the sack of Rome by Alaric
in 410 A. D., when his barbarian soldiers probably broke it
open in search of treasure, and scattered the ashes of the
Antonines to the winds. From this time, for a hundred years,
the tomb was turned into a fortress, the possession of which
became the object of many struggles in the wars of the Goths
under Vitiges (537 A. D.) and Totilas (killed 552). From the
end of the sixth century, when Gregory the Great saw on its
summit a vision of St. Michael sheathing his sword, in token
that the prayers of the Romans for preservation from the
plague were heard, the Mausoleum of Hadrian was considered as
a consecrated building, under the name of 'S. Angelus inter
Nubes,' 'Usque ad Cœlos,' or 'Inter Cœlos,' until it was
seized in 923 A. D. by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the
infamous Marozia, and again became the scene of the fierce
struggles between Popes, Emperors, and reckless adventurers
which marked those miserable times. The last injuries appear
to have been inflicted upon the building in the contest
between the French Pope Clemens VII. and the Italian Pope
Urban VIII. [see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417]. The exterior was
then finally dismantled and stripped. Partial additions and
restorations soon began to take place. Boniface IX., in the
beginning of the fifteenth century, erected new battlements
and fortifications on and around the building; and since his
time it has remained in the possession of the Papal
government. The strange medley of Papal reception rooms,
dungeons and military magazines which now encumbers the top,
was chiefly built by Paul III. The corridor connecting it with
the Vatican dates from the time of Alexander Borgia (1494 A.
D.), and the bronze statue of St. Michael on the summit, which
replaced an older marble statue, from the reign of Benedict
XIV."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 11.
ALSO IN: W. W. Story, Castle St. Angelo.
{398}
CASTLENAUDARI, Battle of (1632).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
CASTLEREAGH, Lord, and the union of Ireland with Great Britain:
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
CASTOR WARE.
"Durobrivian or Castor ware, as it is variously called, is the
production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the
River Nen in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, which, with
settlements, are computed to have covered a district of some
twenty square miles in extent. ... There are several varieties
... and two especially have been remarked; the first, blue, or
slate-coloured, the other reddish-brown, or of a dark copper
colour."
L. Jewett, Grave Mounds, page 152.
CASTRA, Roman.
"When a Roman army was in the field it never halted, even for
a single night, without throwing up an entrenchment capable of
containing the whole of the troops and their baggage. This
field-work was termed Castra. ... The form of the camp was a
square, each side of which was 2,017 Roman feet in length. The
defences consisted of a ditch, (fossa,) the earth dug out,
being thrown inwards so as to form a rampart, (agger,) upon
the summit of which a palisade (vallum) was erected of wooden
stakes, (valli--sudes,) a certain number of which were carried
by each soldier, along with his entrenching tools."
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 12.
CASTRICUM, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
CASTRIOTS, The.
See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
CASTRUCCIO CASTRACANI, The despotism of.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
CAT NATION, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.
CATACOMBS OF ROME, The.
"The Roman Catacombs--a name consecrated by long usage, but
having no etymological meaning, and not a very determinate
geographical one--are a vast labyrinth of galleries excavated
in the bowels of the earth in the hills around the Eternal
City; not in the hills on which the city itself was built, but
in those beyond the walls. Their extent is enormous, not as to
the amount of superficial soil which they underlie, for they
rarely, if ever, pass beyond the third milestone from the
city, but in the actual length of their galleries; for these
are often excavated on various levels, or piani, three, four,
or even five, one above the other, and they cross and recross
one another, some times at short intervals, on each of these
levels; so that, on the whole, there are certainly not less
that 350 miles of them; that is to say, if stretched out in
one continuous line, they would extend the whole length of
Italy itself. The galleries are from two to four feet in
width, and vary in height according to the nature of the rock
in which they are dug. The walls on both sides are pierced
with horizontal niches, like shelves in a book-case, or berths
in a steamer, and every niche once contained one or more dead
bodies. At various intervals this succession of shelves is
interrupted for a moment, that room may be made for a doorway
opening into a small chamber; and the walls of these chambers
are generally pierced with graves in the same way as the
galleries. These vast excavations once formed the ancient
Christian cemeteries of Rome; they were begun in apostolic
times, and continued to be used as burial-places of the
faithful until the capture of the city by Alaric in the year
410. In the third century, the Roman Church numbered
twenty-five or twenty-six of them, corresponding to the number
of her titles or parishes within the city; and besides these,
there are about twenty others, of smaller dimensions, isolated
monuments of special martyrs, or belonging to this or that
private family. Originally they all belonged to private
families or individuals, the villas or gardens in which they
were dug being the property of wealthy citizens who had
embraced the faith of Christ, and devoted of their substance
to His service. Hence their most ancient titles were taken
merely from the names of their lawful owners, many of which
still survive. ... It has always been agreed among men of
learning who have had an opportunity of examining these
excavations, that they were used exclusively by the Christians
as places of burial and of holding religious assemblies.
Modern research has placed it beyond a doubt, that they were
also originally designed for this purpose and for no other."
J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow,
Roma Sotterranea, book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions, chapter 13.
CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, The.
The Catalan Grand Company was a formidable body of military
adventurers--mercenary soldiers--formed in Sicily during the
twenty years of war that followed the Sicilian Vespers. "High
pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia and
Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily and induced
them to submit to the severest discipline." The conclusion of
peace in 1302 threw this trained army out of employment, and
the greater part of its members were enlisted in the service
of Andronicus II., of the restored Greek empire at
Constantinople. They were under the command of one Roger de
Flor, who had been a Templar, degraded from his knighthood for
desertion, and afterwards a pirate; but whose military talents
were undoubted. The Grand Company soon quarrelled with the
Greek emperor; its leader was assassinated, and open war
declared. The Greek army was terribly defeated in a battle at
Apros, A. D. 1307, and the Catalans plundered Thrace for two
years without resistance. Gallipoli, their headquarters, to
which they brought their captives, became one of the great
slave marts of Europe. In 1310 they marched into the heart of
Greece, and were engaged in the service of Walter de Brienne,
Duke of Athens.
{399}
He, too, found them dangerous servants. Quarrels were followed
by war; the Duke perished in a battle (A. D. 1311) with his
Catalan mercenaries on the banks of the Cephissus; his
dukedom, embracing Attica and Bœotia, was the prize of their
victory. The widows and daughters of the Greek nobles who had
fallen were forced to marry the officers of the Catalans, who
thus settled themselves in family as well as estate. They
elected a Duke of Athens; but proceeded afterwards to make the
duchy an appanage of the House of Aragon. The title was held
by sons of the Aragonese kings of Sicily until 1377, when it
passed to Alphonso V., king of Aragon, and was retained by the
kings of Spain after the union of the crowns of Aragon and
Castile. The titular dukes were represented at Athens by
regents. "During the period the duchy of Athens was possessed
by the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, the Catalans
were incessantly engaged in wars with all their neighbours."
But, gradually, their military vigor and discipline were lost,
and their name and power in Greece disappeared about 1386,
when Athens and most of the territory of its duchy was
conquered by Nero Acciainoli, a rich and powerful Florentine,
who had become governor of Corinth, but acted as an
independent prince, and who founded a new ducal family.
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2, section 2.
ALSO IN:
G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest
by the Crusaders, chapter 7, sec. 3.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
CATALANS: A. D. 1151.
The County of Barcelona united by marriage to Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
CATALANS: A. D. 12th-15th Centuries.
Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.
See BARCELONA: 12th-16th CENTURIES.
CATALANS: A. D. 1461-1472.
Long but unsuccessful revolt against John II. of Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
CATALANS: A. D. 1639-1640.
Causes of disaffection and revolt.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
CATALANS: A. D. 1640-1652.
Revolt.
Renunciation of allegiance to the Spanish crown.
Annexation to France offered and accepted.
Re-subjection to Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642; 1644-1646; 1648-1652.
CATALANS: A. D. 1705.
Adhesion to the Allies in the War of the Spanish Succession.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
CATALANS: A. D. 1713-1714.
Betrayed and deserted by the Allies.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
----------CATALANS: End----------
CATALAUNIAN PLAINS.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
CATALONIA.
See CATALANS.
CATANA, OR KATANA, Battle of.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
CATANIA.
Storming and capture by King Ferdinand (1849).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
CATAPAN.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
CATAWBAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
CATEAU-CAMBRESIS, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CATERANS.
"In 1384 an act was passed [by the Scotch parliament] for the
suppression of masterful plunderers, who get in the statute
their Highland name of 'cateran.' ... This is the first of a
long succession of penal and denunciatory laws against the
Highlanders."
J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 27.
CATHARISTS, OR PATARENES.
"Among all the sects of the Middle Ages, very far the most
important in numbers and in radical antagonism to the Church,
were the Cathari, or the Pure, as with characteristic
sectarian assumption they styled themselves. Albigenses they
were called in Languedoc; Patarenes in North Italy; Good Men
by themselves. Stretching through central Europe to Thrace and
Bulgaria, they joined hands with the Paulicians of the East
and shared their errors. Whether these Cathari stood in lineal
historical descent from the old Manichæans, or had generated a
dualistic scheme of their own, is a question hard to answer,
and which has been answered in very different ways. This much,
however, is certain, that in all essentials they agreed with
them."
R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
lecture 15.
"In Italy, men supposed to hold the same belief [as that of
the Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.] went by the name of the
Paterini, a word of uncertain derivation, perhaps arising from
their willingness meekly to submit to all sufferings for
Christ's sake (pati), perhaps from a quarter in the city of
Milan named 'Pataria'; and more lately by that of Cathari (the
Pure, Puritans), which was soon corrupted into Gazari, whence
the German 'Ketzer,' the general word for a heretic."
L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times, chapter I.
See, also, PAULICIANS, and ALBIGENSES.
CATHAY.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
CATHELINEAU AND, THE INSURRECTION IN LA VENDEE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL);
(JUNE); and (JULY-DECEMBER).
CATHERINE I., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1725-1727.
Catherine II., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1762-1796.
Catherine and Jean d'Albret, Queen and King of Navarre, A. D. 1503-1512.
Catherine de Medici: her part in French history.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, to 1584-1589.
CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CATHOLIC RENT IN IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
CATHOLIC LEAGUE, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
CATHOLIC LEAGUE IN FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585 and after.
CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1572-1679.
Persecutions.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587; 1587-1588; 1678-1679.
CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1691-1782.
Oppression of the Penal Laws.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.
CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Penal laws.
No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1795-1796.
Persecution by Protestant mobs.
Formation of the Orange Society.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1801.
Pitt's promises broken by the King.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
CATHOLICS (England and Ireland): A. D. 1829.
Emancipation from civil disabilities.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
{400}
CATHOLICS, Old.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
CATILINE, The Conspiracy of.
See ROME: B. C. 63.
CATINI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CATO THE YOUNGER,
and the last years of the Roman Republic.
See ROME: B. C. 63-58, to 47-46.
CATO STREET CONSPIRACY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
CATRAIL, The.
An ancient rampart, the remains of which are found in southern
Scotland, running from the south-east corner of Peeblesshire
to the south side of Liddesdale. It is supposed to have marked
the boundary between the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia and
the territory of the British kings of Alcluith (Dumbarton).
W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.
CATTANI.--VASSALI.--MASNADA.--SERVI.
The feudal barons of northern Italy were called Cattani. In
the Florentine territory, "many of these Cattani, after having
been subdued and made citizens of Florence, still maintained
their feudal following, and were usually attended by troops of
retainers, half slaves, half freedmen, called 'Uomini di
Masnada,' who held certain possessions of them by the tenure
of military service, took oaths of fidelity, and appear to
have included every rank of person in the different Italian
states according to the quality of the chief; but without any
degradation of character being attached to such employment.
This kind of servitude, which could not be thrown off without
a formal act of manumission, was common in the north of Italy,
and began in the 11th century, when innumerable chieftains
started up owning no superior but the emperor. Being at
constant war with each other they sought every means of
creating a military following by granting lands to all ranks
of people, and it is probable that many slaves were then
partly emancipated for the purpose: such a condition, though
not considered dishonourable, was thus essentially tinged with
the colours of slavery, and so far differed from the 'Vassi'
and 'Vassali,' as well as from the 'Vavasours.' ... Some
slight, perhaps unnecessary distinction is made between the
'Vassi,' who are supposed to have been vassals of the crown,
and the 'Vassali,' who were the vassals of great lords. The
'Vavasours' were the vassals of great vassals. ... This union
[as described above] of 'Servi,' slaves, or vassals of one
chief, was called 'Masnada,' and hence the name 'Masnadieri,'
so often recurring in early Italian history; for the
commanders of these irregular bands were often retained in the
pay of the republic and frequently kept the field when the
civic troops had returned to their homes, or when the war was
not sufficiently important to bring the latter out with the
Carroccio. ... Besides these military Villains, who were also
called 'Fedeli,' there were two other kinds of slaves amongst
the early Italians, namely prisoners of war and the labourers
attached to the soil, who were considered as cattle in every
respect except that of their superior utility and value: the
former species of slavery was probably soon dissolved by the
union of self-interest and humanity: the latter began to
decline in the 12th century, partly continued through the
13th, and vanished entirely in the 14th century."
H. E. Napier, Florentine History, volume 1, page 624.
CATTI, The.
See CHATTI.
CATUVELLANI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CAUCASUS AND THE CIRCASSIANS.
The Russian conquest.
"The Caucasus has always possessed a certain fascination not
for the Russians only, but also for western nations, and is
peculiarly rich in historical traditions, and in memories of
ancient times and ancient nations. Here to the rocks of
Elbruz, Prometheus lay chained; and to Colchis, where the
Phasis flowed towards the sea, through ever green woods, came
the Argonauts. The present Kutais is the old capital of King
Æetes, near which, in the sacred grove of Ares, hung the
golden fleece. The gold mines which the Russians discovered in
1864 were apparently known to the Greeks, whose colony,
Dioscurias, was an assemblage of 300 diverse nationalities.
... Here on the coasts of the stormy and dangerous Black Sea
arose the famous Pontine kingdom [see MITHRIDATIC WARS] which
in spite of its valiant resistance under Mithridates, fell a
victim to Roman aggression. Along the rivers Kura and Rion ran
the old commercial road from Europe to Asia, which enriched
the Venetians and the Genoese in the middle ages. Up to recent
times this trade consisted not only of all sorts of other
merchandise, but of slaves; numberless girls and women were
conveyed to Turkish harems and there exercised an important
influence on the character of the Tartar and Mongol races. In
the middle ages the Caucasus was the route by which the wild
Asiatic hordes, the Goths, Khasars, Huns, Avars, Mongols,
Tartars, and Arabs crossed from Asia into Europe; and
consequently its secluded valleys contain a population
composed of more different and distinct races than any other
district in the world. ... It was in the 16th century, under
Ivan the Terrible, that Russia first turned her attention to
the conquest of the Caucasus; but it was not till 1859 that
the defeat and capture of the famous Schamyl brought about the
final subjugation of the country. ... In 1785 [after the
partial conquest of 1784--see TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792] the
mountaineers had been incited to take arms by a so-called
prophet Scheick Mansur, but he was seized and banished to
Solovetsk, on the White Sea. In 1820 a Mollah, Kasi by name,
made his appearance in Daghestan, and began to preach the
'Kasawat,' that is, holy war against the Russians. To him
succeeded another equally fanatical adventurer, Hamset Beg.
The work which they had begun was carried on by Schamyl, who
far surpassed his predecessors in all the qualities which make
up a successful guerilla chief, and who maintained the unequal
conflict against the enemies of his country for 25 years with
singular good fortune, undaunted courage, untiring energy, and
conspicuous ability. He was of the tribe of the Lesghians in
Daghestan, and was born in 1796, in the village of Gimri, of
poor shepherd parents. In spite of his humble origin he raised
himself to the rank of an Imaum, surrounded himself with a
strong body-guard of devoted adherents, whom he named Murides,
and succeeded in fanning to a flame the patriotic ardour of
his fellow-countrymen. The capture of the mountain fastness of
Achulgo in 1839 seemed to be the death-blow of Schamyl's
cause, for it brought about the loss of the whole of
Daghestan, the very focus of the Murides' activity.
{401}
Schamyl barely escaped being made a prisoner, and was forced
to yield up his son, Djammel-Edden, only nine years of age as
a hostage. The boy was sent to St. Petersburg and placed in a
cadet corps, which he left at the conclusion of his military
education somewhere about 1850 and returned to his native
country in 1854 where he died a few years later. In 1840 the
Tchetchens, who had previously been pacified, rose in arms
once more, and Daghestan and other parts of the country
followed their example. The country of the Tchetchens was a
specially favourable theatre for the conflict with the
Russians; its long mountain chains, rocky fastnesses,
impenetrable forests, and wild precipices and gorges rendered
ambuscades and surprises of constant and, to the Russians,
fatal occurrence. During the earlier stages of the war, Russia
had ransomed the officers taken prisoners by the mountaineers,
but, subsequently, no quarter was given on either side. At
last, by means of a great concentration of troops on all the
threatened points, by fortifying the chief central stations,
find by forming broad military roads throughout the district,
the Russians succeeded in breaking down Schamyl's resistance.
He now suffered one reverse after another. His chief
fastnesses, Dargo, Weden, and Guni, were successively stormed
and destroyed; and, finally, he himself and his family were
taken prisoners. He was astonished and, it is said, not
altogether gratified to find that a violent death was not to
close his romantic career. He and his family were at first
interned at Kaluga in Russia, both a house and a considerable
sum of money for his maintenance being assigned to him. But
after a few years he was allowed to remove to Mecca, where he
died. His sons and grandsons, who have entirely adopted the
manners of the Russians, are officers in the Circassian guard.
In 1864 the pacification of the whole country was
accomplished, and a few years later the abolition of serfdom
was proclaimed at Tifiis. After the subjugation of the various
mountain tribes, the Circassians had the choice given them by
the Government of settling on the low country along the Kuban,
or of emigrating to Turkey. The latter course was chosen by
the bulk of the nation, urged, thereto, in great measure, by
envoys from Turkey. As many as 400,000 are said to have come
to the ports, where the Sultan had promised to send vessels to
receive them; but delays took place, and a large number died
of want and disease. Those who reached Turkey were settled on
the west coasts of the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and near Varna,
and proved themselves most troublesome and unruly subjects.
Most of those who at first remained in Circassia followed
their fellow-countrymen in 1874."
H. M. Chester, Russia, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
F. Mayne, Life of Nicholas I., part 1, chapter 11 and 14.
S. M. Schmucker, Life and Reign of Nicholas I., chapter 21.
CAUCASUS, The Indian.
"The real Caucasus was the most lofty range of mountains known
to the Greeks before [Alexander's conquests], and they were
generally regarded as the highest mountains in the world.
Hence when the army of Alexander came in sight of the vast
mountain barrier [of the Hindoo Koosh] that rose before them
as they advanced northward from Arachosia, they seem to have
at once concluded that this could be no other than the
Caucasus." Hence the name Caucasus given by the Greeks to
those mountains; "for the name of Hindoo Koosh, by which they
are still known, is nothing more than a corruption of the
Indian Caucasus."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 12, note Q.
CAUCI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
CAUCUS.
In 1634--the fourth year of the colony of Massachusetts
Bay--the freemen of the colony chose Dudley instead of
Winthrop for governor. The next year they "followed up the
doctrine of rotation in office by choosing Haynes as governor,
a choice agreed upon by deputies from the towns, who came
together for that purpose previously to the meeting of the
court--the first instance of 'the caucus system' on record."
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 1, page 224.
See also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
CAUDINE FORKS, The Romans at the.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
CAUSENNÆ, OR ISINÆ.
A town of some importance in Roman Britain. "There can be no
doubt that this town occupied the site of the modern Ancaster,
which has been celebrated for its Roman antiquities since the
time of Leland."
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
CAVALIERS, The party of the.
See ENGLAND: A.. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
also, ROUNDHEADS.
CAVE DWELLERS.
"We find a hunting and fishing race of cave-dwellers, in the
remote pleistocene age, in possession of France, Belgium,
Germany, and Britain, probably of the same stock as the
Eskimos, living and forming part of a fauna in which northern
and southern, living and extinct, species are strangely
mingled with those now living in Europe. In the neolithic age
caves were inhabited, and used for tombs, by men of the
Iberian or Basque race, which is still represented by the
small dark-haired peoples of Europe."
W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting, page 430.
CAVE OF ADULLAM.
See ADULLAM, CAVE OF.
CAVOUR, Count, and the unification of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.
CAVOUR, Treaty of (1561).
See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.
CAWNPUR, OR CAWNPORE: A. D. 1857.
Siege by the Sepoy mutineers.
Surrender and massacre of the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
CAXTON PRESS, The.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
CAYENNE, Colonization of.
See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.
CAYUGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
CEADAS, The.
See BARATHRUM.
CEBRENES, The.
See TROJA.
CECIL, Sir William (Lord Burleigh),
The reign of Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
CECORA, Battle of (1621).
See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
CECROPIA.--CECROPIAN HILL.
The Acropolis of Athens.
See ATTICA.
{402}
CEDAR CREEK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
CEDAR MOUNTAIN OR CEDAR RUN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
CELESTINE II., Pope, A. D. 1143-1144.
Celestine III., Pope, A. D. 1191-1198.
Celestine IV., Pope, A. D. 1241..
Celestine V., Pope, A. D. 1294, July to December.
CELTIBERIANS, The.
"The Celtiberi occupied the centre of Spain, and a large part
of the two Castiles, an elevated table land bordered and
intersected by mountains. They were the most warlike race in
the Spanish peninsula."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 1.
"The appellation Celtiberians indicates that in the
north-eastern part of the peninsula [Spain] there was a
mixture of Celts and Iberians. Nevertheless the Iberians must
have been the prevailing race, for we find no indications of
Celtic characteristics in the people."
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 6, note.
See, also, NUMANTIAN WAR.
CELTS, The.
"The Celts form a branch of the great family of nations which
has been variously called Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic,
Indo-Celtic and Japhetic, its other branches being represented by
the Italians, the Greeks, the Litu-Slaves, the Armenians, the
Persians and the chief peoples of Hindustan. ... The Celts of
antiquity who appeared first and oftenest in history were
those of Gallia, which, having been made by the French into
Gaule, we term Gaul. It included the France and Switzerland of
the present day, and much territory besides. This people had
various names. One of them was Galli, which in their language
meant warriors or brave men; ... but the Gauls themselves in
Cæsar's time appear to have preferred the name which he wrote
Celtæ. This was synonymous with the other and appears to have
meant warriors. ... The Celtic family, so far back as we can
trace it into the darkness of antiquity consisted of two
groups or branches, with linguistic features of their own
which marked them off from one another. To the one belonged
the ancestors of the people who speak Gaelic in Ireland, the
Isle of Man and the Highlands of the North. ... The national
name which the members of this group have always given
themselves, so far as one knows, is that of Gaidhel,
pronounced and spelt in English Gael, but formerly written by
themselves Goidel. ... The other group is represented in point
of speech by the people of Wales and the Bretons. ... The
national name of those speaking these dialects was that of
Briton; but, since that word has now no precise meaning, we
take the Welsh form of it, which is Brython, and call this
group Brythons and Brythonic, whenever it is needful to be
exact. The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them,
since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to
settle in Britain."
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 1.
See, also, ARYANS, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.
CELTS:
Origin and first meaning of the name.
"Who were the Keltre of Spain? the population whose name
occurs in the word Celtici and Celtiberi, Keltic Iberians or
Iberian Kelts? ... I think, that though used to denominate the
tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it [the word Celt or
Kelt] was, originally, no Gallic word--as little native as
Welsh is British. I also think that even the first populations
to which it was applied were other than Keltic in the modern
sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word
belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of
Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. ... By the time of
Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were
included under the name Celtæ: in other words, the Iberian
name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks
as the name for all the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and
it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the
populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians."
R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.
----------CELTS: Origin: End----------
CELTS.
A name given among archæologists to certain prehistoric
implements, both stone and bronze, of the wedge, chisel and
axe kind. Mr. Thomas Wright, contends that the term is
properly applied only to the bronze chisels, which the old
antiquary Hearne identified with the Roman celtis, or
chisel--whence the name. It has evidently no connection with
the word Celt used ethnologically.
CELYDDON, Forest of (or Coed Celydon).
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CENABUM.
See GENABUM.
CENOMANIANS, The.
See INSUBRIANS.
CENSORS, The Roman.
"The censorship was an office so remarkable that, however
familiar the subject may be to many readers, it is necessary
here to bestow some notice on it. Its original business was to
take a register of the citizens and of their property; but
this, which seems at first sight to be no more than the
drawing up of a mere statistical report, became in fact, from
the large discretion allowed to every Roman officer, a
political power of the highest importance. The censors made
out the returns of the free population; but they did more;
they divided it according to its civil distinctions, and drew
up a list of the senators, a list of the equites, a list of
the members of the several tribes, or of those citizens who
enjoyed the right of voting, and a list of the ærarians,
consisting of those freedmen, naturalized strangers, and
others, who, being enrolled in no tribe, possessed no vote in
the comitia, but still enjoyed all the private rights of Roman
citizens. Now the lists thus drawn up by the censors were
regarded as legal evidence of a man's condition. ... From
thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to
the decision of questions of right; such as whether a citizen
was really worthy of retaining his rank. ... If a man behaved
tyrannically to his wife or children, if he was guilty of
excessive cruelty even to his slaves, if he neglected his
land, if he indulged in habits of extravagant expense, or
followed any calling which was regarded as degrading, the
offence was justly noted by the censors, and the offender was
struck off from the list of senators, if his rank was so high;
or, if he were an ordinary citizen, he was expelled from his
tribe, and reduced to the class of the ærarians. ... The
censors had the entire management of the regular revenues of
the state, or of its vectigalia. They were the commonwealth's
stewards, and to their hands all its property was entrusted.
... With these almost kingly powers, and arrayed in kingly
state, for the censor's robe was all scarlet ... the censors
might well seem too great for a free commonwealth."
T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 17.
See, also, LUSTRUM.
{403}
CENTRAL AMERICA:
Ruins of ancient civilization.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;
also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.
CENTRAL AMERICA: Discovery and early settlement.
See AMERICAN: A. D. 1498-1505; 1500-1511; 1513-1517.
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
Separation from Spain, and Independence.
Attempted federation and its failures.
Wars and revolutions of the five Republics.
"The central part of the American continent, extending from
the southern boundary of Mexico to the Isthmus of Panama,
consisted in the old colonial times of several Intendancies,
all of which were united in the Captaincy-General of
Guatemala. Like the West Indian Islands, it was a neglected
part of the Spanish Empire. ... Central America has no history
up to the epoch of independence. ... It was not until the
success of the Revolution had become certain on both sides of
them, both in Mexico and New Granada, that the Intendancies
which made up the Captaincy-General of Guatemala declared
themselves also independent of Spain. The cry of liberty had
indeed been raised in Costa Rica in 1813, and in Nicaragua in
1815; but the Revolution was postponed for six years longer.
Guatemala, the seat of government, published its declaration
in September, 1821, and its example was speedily followed by
San Salvador and Honduras. Nicaragua, on proclaiming its
independence, together with one of the departments of
Guatemala, declared its adhesion to what was known in Mexico
as the plan of Ignala [see MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826]. As there
were no Spanish troops in Central America, the recusant
Spanish official party could make no resistance to the popular
movement; and many of them crossed the sea to Cuba or returned
to Spain. ... The Revolution of Central America thus stands
alone in the history of independence, as having been
accomplished without the shedding of blood." During the brief
empire of Iturbide in Mexico [see as above] the Central
American states were annexed to it, though with strong
resistance on the part of all except Guatemala. "On the
proclamation of the Federal Republic in Mexico [1824], the
whole of Central America, except the district of Chiapas,
withdrew from the alliance, and drove out the Mexican
officials as only a year before they had driven out the
Spanish officials. The people now had to face the task of
forming a government for themselves: and ... they now resolved
on combining in a federation, in imitation of the great United
States of North America. Perhaps no states were ever less
suited to form a federal union. The petty territories of
Central America lie on two Oceans, are divided by lofty
mountains, and have scarcely any communication with each
other: and the citizens of each have scarcely any common
interest. A Central American federation, however, was an
imposing idea, and the people clung to it with great
pertinacity. The first effort for federation was made under
the direction of General Filisola. All the Intendancies
combined in one sovereign state; first under the name of the
'United Provinces,' afterwards (November 22, 1823) under that
of the 'Federal Republic' of Central America. ... A
constitution of the most liberal kind was voted. This
constitution is remarkable for having been the first which
abolished slavery at once and absolutely and declared the
slave trade to be piracy. ... The clerical and oligarchic
party set their faces stubbornly against the execution of the
constitution, and began the revolt at Leon in Nicaragua. The
union broke down in 1826, and though Morazan [of Honduras]
reconstituted it in 1829, its history is a record of continual
rebellion and reaction on the part of the Guatemaltec
oligarchy. Of all South American conservative parties this
oligarchy was perhaps the most despicable. They sank to their
lowest when they raised the Spanish flag in 1832. But in doing
this they went too far. Morazan's successes date from this
time, and having beaten the Guatemaltecs, he transferred the
Federal government in 1834 to San Salvador. But the Federal
Republic of Central America dragged on a precarious existence
until 1838, when it was overthrown by the revolt of Carrera in
Guatemala. From the first the influence of the Federalists in
the capital began to decay, and it was soon apparent that they
had little power except in Honduras, San Salvador and
Nicaragua. The Costa Ricans, a thriving commercial community,
but of no great political importance, and separated by
mountainous wastes from all the rest, soon ceased to take any
part in public business. A second Federal Republic, excluding
Costa Rica, was agreed to in 1842; but it fared no better than
the first. The chief representative of the Federalist
principle in Central America was Morazan, of Honduras, from
whose government Carrera had revolted in 1838. On the failure
of the Federation Morazan had fled to Chile, and on his return
to Costa Rica he was shot at San José by the Carrerists. This
was a great blow to the Liberals, and it was not until 1847
that a third Federation, consisting of Honduras, San Salvador,
and Nicaragua, was organized. For some years Honduras, at the
head of these states, carried on a war against Guatemala to
compel it to join the union. Guatemala was far more than their
match: San Salvador and Nicaragua soon failed in the struggle,
and left Honduras to carry on the war alone. Under General
Carrera Guatemala completely defeated its rival; and to his
successes are due the revival of the Conservative or Clerical
party all over Central America. ... The government of each
state became weaker and weaker: revolutions were everywhere
frequent: and ultimately ... the whole country was near
falling into the hands of a North American adventurer [see
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860]. In former times the English
government had maintained some connection with the country
[originating with the buccaneers and made important by the
mahogany-cutting] through the independent Indians of the
Mosquito coast, over whom, for the purposes of their trade
with Jamaica, it had maintained a protectorate: and even a
small English commercial colony, called Greytown, had been
founded on this coast at the mouth of the river San Juan.
Towards the close of Carrera's ascendancy this coast was
resigned to Nicaragua, and the Bay Islands, which lie off the
coast, to Honduras: and England thus retained nothing in the
country but the old settlement of British Honduras, with its
capital, Belize. After Carrera's death in 1865, the Liberal
party began to reassert itself: and in 1871 there was a
Liberal revolution in Guatemala itself."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 21.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States.
----------CENTRAL AMERICA: End----------
{404}
CENTRAL ASIA.
See ASIA, CENTRAL.
CENTRE, The.
See RIGHT, &c.
CENTREVILLE, Evacuation of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
CENTURIES, Roman.
See COMITIA CENTURIATA.
CENTURION.
The officer commanding one of the fifty-five centuries or
companies in a Roman legion of the empire.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
CENWULF, King of Mercia, A. D. 794-819.
CEORL.
See EORL, and ETHEL.
CEPEDA, Battle of(1859).
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
CEPHISSUS, Battle of the (A. D. 1311).
See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.
The Ceramicus was originally the most important of the
suburban districts of Athens and derived its name from the
potters. "It is probable that about the time of Pisistratus
the market of the ancient suburb called the Ceramicus (for
every Attic district possessed its own market) was constituted
the central market of the city. ... They [the Pisistratidæ]
connected Athens in all directions by roadways with the
country districts: these roads were accurately measured, and
all met on the Ceramicus, in the centre of which an altar was
erected to the Twelve Gods. From this centre of town and
country were calculated the distances to the different country
districts, to the ports, and to the most important sanctuaries
of the common fatherland. ... [In the next century--in the age
of Pericles--the population had extended to the north and west
and] part of the ancient potters' district or Ceramicus had
long become a quarter of the city [the Inner Ceramicus]; the
other part remained suburb [the Outer Ceramicus]. Between the
two lay the double gate or Dipylum, the broadest and most
splendid gate of the city. ... Here the broad carriage-road
which, avoiding all heights, ascended from the market-place of
Hippodamus directly to the city-market of the Ceramicus,
entered the city; from here straight to the west led the road
to Eleusis, the sacred course of the festive processions. ...
From this road again, immediately outside the gate, branched
off that which led to the Academy. ... The high roads in the
vicinity of the city gates were everywhere bordered with
numerous and handsome sepulchral monuments, in particular the
road leading through the outer Ceramicus. Here lay the public
burial-ground for the citizens who had fallen in war; the vast
space was divided into fields, corresponding to the different
battle-fields at home and abroad."
E. Curtius, History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 3.
CERESTES, OR KERESTES, Battle of (1596).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
CERIGNOLA, Battle of (1503).
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
CERISOLES, Battle of (1544).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
CERONES, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CERRO GORDO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CESS.
A word, corrupted from "assess," signifying a rate, or tax;
used especially in Scotland, and applied more particularly to
a tax imposed in 1678, for the maintenance of troops, during
the persecution of the Covenanters.
J. H. Thompson, A Cloud of Witnesses, page 67.
The Imp. Diet.
CEUTA, A. D. 1415.
Siege and capture by the Portuguese.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
CEUTA: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to Spain.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
----------CEUTA: End----------
CÉVENNES,
The prophets of the (or the Cévenol prophets).
The Camisards.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
CEYLON,
3d Century B. C.
Conversion to Buddhism.
See INDIA: B. C. 312-.
CEYLON: A. D. 1802.
Permanent acquisition by England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
----------CEYLON: End----------
CHACABUCO, Battle of (1817).
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
CHACO, The Gran.
See GRAN CHACO.
CHÆRONEA, Battles of (B. C. 338).
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
CHÆRONEA:(B. C. 86).
See MITHRIDATIC WARS.
CHAGAN.
See KUAN.
CHA'HTAS, OR CHOCTAWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
CHALCEDON.
An ancient Greek city, founded by the Megarians on the Asiatic
side of the Bosphorus, nearly opposite to Byzantium, like
which city it suffered in early times many changes of masters.
It was bequeathed to the Romans by the last king of Bithynia.
CHALCEDON: A. D. 258.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
CHALCEDON: A. D. 616-625.
The Persians in possession.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
----------CHALCEDON: End----------
CHALCEDON, The Council of (A. D. 451).
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.
"The most dangerous rivals of Ionia were the towns of Eubœa,
among which, in the first instance, Cyme, situated in an
excellent bay of the east coast, in a district abounding in
wine, and afterwards the two sister-towns on the Euripus,
Chalcis and Eretria, distinguished themselves by larger
measures of colonization. While Eretria, the 'city of rowers,'
rose to prosperity especially by means of purple-fisheries and
a ferry-navigation conducted on a constantly increasing scale,
Chalcis, the 'bronze city,' on the double sea of the Bœotian
sound, contrived to raise and employ for herself the most
important of the many treasures of the island--its copper. ...
Chalcis became the Greek centre of this branch of industry; it
became the Greek Sidon. Next to Cyprus there were no richer
stores of copper in the Greek world than on Eubœa, and in
Chalcis were the first copper-works and smithies known in
European Greece."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.
The Chalcidians were enterprising colonists, particularly in
Thrace, in the Macedonian peninsula, where they are said to
have founded thirty-two towns, which were collectively called
the Chalcidice, and in southern Italy and Sicily. It was the
abundant wealth of Thrace in metallic ores which drew the
Chalcidians to it. About 700 B. C. a border feud between
Chalcis and Eretria, concerning certain "Lelantian fields"
which lay between them, grew to such proportions and so many
other states came to take part in it, that, "according to
Thucydides no war of more universal importance for the whole
nation was fought between the fall of Troja and the Persian
war."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 1, book 2, chapter 1.
Chalcis was subdued by the Athenians in B. C. 506.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506;
also KLERUCHS, and EUBŒA.
{405}
CHALCUS.
See TALENT.
CHALDEA.--CHALDEES.
See BABYLONIA.
CHALDEAN CHURCH.
See NESTORIANS.
CHALDIRAN, Battle of (1514).
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
CHALGROVE FIELD, Fall of Hampden at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
CHALONS, Battles at (A. D. 271).
Among the many pretenders to the Roman imperial throne--"the
thirty tyrants," as they were called--of the distracted reign
of Gallienus, was Tetricus, who had been governor of
Aquitaine. The dangerous honor was forced upon him, by a
demoralized army, and he reigned against his will for several
years over Gaul, Spain and Britain. At length, when the
iron-handed Aurelian had taken the reins of government at
Rome, Tetricus secretly plotted with him for deliverance from
his own uncoveted greatness. Aurelian invaded Gaul and
Tetricus led an army against him, only to betray it, in a
great battle at Chalons (271), where the rebels were cut to
pieces.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
CHALONS: A. D. 366.
See ALEMANNI, INVASION OF GAUL BY THE.
CHALONS: A. D. 451.
See HUNS: A. D. 451, ATTILA'S INVASION OF GAUL.
----------CHALONS: End----------
CHALYBES, The.
The Chalybes, or Chalybians, were an ancient people in Asia
Minor, on the coast of the Euxine, probably east of the Halys,
who were noted as workers of iron.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geog., chapter 22, note A.
CHAMAVI, The.
See BRUCTERI;
also, FRANKS;
also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
CHAMBERS OF REANNEXATON, French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
CHAMBERSBURG, Burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY:
VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).
CHAMPAGNE:
Origin of the county.
In the middle years of the revolt that dethroned the
Carlovingians and raised the Capetians to a throne which they
made the throne of a kingdom of France, Count Herbert of
Vermandois allied himself with the party of the latter, and
began operations for the expanding of his domain. "The
Champaign of Rheims, the 'Campania Remensis'--a most
appropriate descriptive denomination of the region--an
extension of the plains of Flanders--but not yet employed
politically as designating a province--was protected against
Count Herbert on the Vermandois border by the Castrum
Theodorici--Château Thierry. ... Herbert's profuse promises
induced the commander to betray his duty. ... Herbert, through
this occupation of Château Thierry, obtained the city of
Troyes and all the 'Campania Remensis,' which, under his
potent sway, was speedily developed into the magnificent
County of Champagne. Herbert and his lineage held Champagne
during three generations, until some time after the accession
of the Capets, when the Grand Fief passed from the House of
Vermandois to the House of Blois."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, page 192.
CHAMPEAUBERT, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CHAMPIGNY, Sortie of(1870).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
CHAMPION'S HILL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
CHAMPLAIN, Samuel.
Explorations and Colonizations.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605; 1608-1611;
and 1611-1616.
CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1776.
Arnold's naval battle with Carleton.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1814.
Macdonough's naval victory.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).
----------CHAMPLAIN, End----------
CHAMPS DE MARS.--CHAMPS DE MAI.
When the Merovingian kings of the Franks summoned their
captains to gather for the planning and preparing of
campaigns, the assemblies were called at first the Champs de
Mars, because the meeting was in earliest spring--in March.
"But as the Franks, from serving on foot, became cavaliers
under the second [the Carlovingian] race, the time was changed
to May, for the sake of forage, and the assemblies were called
Champs de Mai."
E. E. Crowe, History of France, chapter 1.
See, also, MALLUM,
and PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
CHANCAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
CHANCELLOR, The.
"The name [of the Chancellor], derived probably from the
cancelli or screen behind which the secretarial work of the
royal household was carried on, claims a considerable
antiquity; and the offices which it denotes are various in
proportion. The chancellor of the Karolingian sovereigns,
succeeding to the place of the more ancient referendarius, is
simply the royal notary; the archi-cancellarius is the chief
of a large body of such officers associated under the name of
the chancery, and is the keeper of the royal seal. It is from
this minister that the English chancellor derives his name and
function. Edward the Confessor, the first of our sovereigns
who had a seal, is also the first who had a chancellor; from
the reign of the Conqueror the office has descended in regular
succession. It seems to have been to a comparatively late
period, generally if not always, at least in England, held by
an ecclesiastic who was a member of the royal household and on
a footing with the great dignitaries. The chancellor was the
most dignified of the royal chaplains, if not the head of that
body. The whole secretarial work of the household and court
fell on the chancellor and the chaplains. ... The chancellor
was, in a manner, the secretary of state for all departments."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 121.
{406}
"In the reign of Edward I. we begin to perceive signs of the
rise of the extraordinary or equitable jurisdiction of the
Chancellor. The numerous petitions addressed to the King and
his Council, seeking the interposition of the royal grace and
favour either to mitigate the harshness of the Common Law or
supply its deficiencies, had been in the special care of the
Chancellor, who examined and reported upon them to the King.
... At length, in 1348, by a writ or ordinance of the 22d year
of Edward III. all such matters as were 'of Grace' were
directed to be dispatched by the Chancellor or by the Keeper
of the Privy Seal. This was a great step in the recognition of
the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as
distinct from the legal jurisdiction of the Chancellor and of
the Courts of Common Law; although it was not until the
following reign that it can be said to have been permanently
established."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History,
pages 173-174.
"The Lord Chancellor is a Privy Councillor by his office; a
Cabinet Minister; and, according to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere,
prolocutor [chairman, or Speaker] of the House of Lords by
prescription."
A. C. Ewald, The Crown and its Advisers, lecture 2.
ALSO IN:
E. Fischel, The English Constitution, book 5, chapter 7.
CHANCELLOR'S ROLLS.
See EXCHEQUER.--EXCHEQUER ROLLS.
CHANCELLORSVILLE, Battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).
CHANCERY.
See CHANCELLOR.
CHANDRAGUPTA, OR CANDRAGUPTA, The empire of.
See INDIA: B. C. 327-312, and 312.
CHANEERS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
CHANTILLY, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).
CHANTRY PRIESTS.
"With the more wealthy and devout [in the 14th, 15th and 16th
centuries] it was the practice to erect little chapels, which
were either added to churches or enclosed by screens within
them, where chantry priests might celebrate mass for the good
of their souls in perpetuity. ... Large sums of money were ...
devoted to the maintenance of chantry priests, whose duty it
was to say mass for the repose of the testator's soul. ... The
character and conduct of the chantry priests must have become
somewhat of a lax order in the 16th century."
R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in
the Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page viii.
CHAOUANONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.
CHAPAS, OR CHAPANECS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, &c.
CHAPULTEPEC, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CHARCAS, Las.
The Spanish province which now forms the Republic of Bolivia.
Also called, formerly, Upper Peru, and sometimes the province
of Potosi.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
and BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.
CHARIBERT I.,
King of Aquitaine, A. D. 561-567.
Charibert II., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 628-631.
CHARITON RIVER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.. D. 1862
(JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.
See
FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814;
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800;
LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
SAXONS: A. D. 772-804;
AVARS: 791-805;
and SPAIN: A. D. 778.
CHARLEMAGNE'S SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.
See SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A.. D. 1668.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1679.
Restored to Spain.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1693.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1697.
Restored to Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to Holland.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
CHARLEROI: A. D. 1746-1748.
Taken by French and ceded to Austria.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
----------CHARLEROI: End----------
CHARLES
(called The Great--Charlemagne),
King of Neustria, A. D. 768;
of all the Franks, A. D. 771;
of Franks and Lombardy, 774;
Emperor of the West, 800-814.
Charles of Austria, Archduke, Campaigns of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
1797 (APRIL-MAY);
1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
also GERMANY: 1809 (JANUARY-.JUNE), (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
Charles of Bourbon,
King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1734-1759.
Charles
(called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1467-1477.
Charles I.,
King of England, 1625-1649.
Trial and execution.
See ENGLAND: A. D.1649 (JANUARY).
Charles I. (of Anjou),
King of Naples and Sicily, 1266-1282;
King of Naples, 1282--1285.
Charles I.,
King of Portugal, 1889-.
Charles II. (called The Bald),
Emperor, and King of Italy, A. D. 875-877;
King of Neustria and Burgundy, 840-877.
Charles II.,
King of England, 1660-1685.
(By a loyal fiction, supposed to have
reigned from 1649, when his father was beheaded;
though the throne was in Cromwell's possession).
Charles II., King of Naples, 1285-1309.
Charles II., King of Navarre, 1349-1387.
Charles II., King of Spain, 1665-1700.
Charles III. (called The Fat),
Emperor, King of the East Franks (Germany),
and King of Italy, A. D. 881-888;
King of the West Franks (France), 884-888.
Charles III. (called The Simple),
King of France, A. D. 892-929.
Charles III., King of Naples, 1381-1386.
Charles III., King of Navarre, 1387-1425.
Charles III., King of Spain, 1759-1788.
Charles IV.,
Emperor, and King of Italy, 1355-1378;
King of Bohemia, 1346-1378;
King of Germany, 1347-1378;
King of Burgundy, 1365-1378.
Charles IV.,
King of France, and of Navarre (Charles I.),1322--1328.
Charles IV., King of Spain, 1788-1808.
Charles V.,
Emperor, 1519-1558;
Duke of Burgundy, 1506-1555;
King of Spain (as Charles I.) and of Naples,
or the Two Sicilies, 1516-1556.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
Charles V. (called The Wise), King of France, 1364-1380.
Charles VI.,
Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1711-1740.
Charles VI. (called The Well-loved), King of France, 1380-1422.
Charles VII. (of Bavaria) Germanic Emperor, 1742-1745.
Charles VII., King of France, 1422-1461.
{407}
Charles VIII., King of France, 1483-1498.
Charles IX., King of France, 1560-1574.
Charles IX., King of Sweden, 1604-1611.
Charles X., King of France
(the last of the House of Bourbon), 1824-1830.
Charles X., King of Sweden, 1654-1660.
Charles XI., King of Sweden, 1660-1697.
Charles XII., King of Sweden, 1697-1718.
Charles XIII., King of Sweden, 1809-1818.
Charles XIV. (Bernadotte), King of Sweden, 1818-1844.
Charles XV., King of Sweden, 1859-1872.
Charles Albert, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1831-1849.
Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, 1580-1630.
Charles Emanuel II., Duke of Savoy, 1638-1675.
Charles Emanuel III., Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1730-1773.
Charles Emanuel IV.,
Duke of Savoy
and King of Sardinia, 1796-1802.
Charles Felix,
Duke of Savoy
and King of Sardinia, 1821-1831.
Charles Martel,
Duke of Austrasia and Mayor of the Palace (of the King of the
Franks), A. D. 715-741.
Charles Robert, or Charobert, or Caribert,
King of Hungary, 1308-1342.
Charles Swerkerson,
King of Sweden, 1161-1167.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
The founding of the city.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1706.
Unsuccessful attack by the French.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Revolutionary proceedings.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 and 1776.
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
Sir Henry Clinton's attack and repulse.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Siege by the British.
Surrender of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The splitting of the National Democratic Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The adoption of the Ordinance of Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860
(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
The Beginning of war.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
The attack and repulse of the Monitor fleet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH
CAROLINA).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
The Union troops on Morris Island.
Assault on Fort Wagner.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).
Siege of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
Evacuation by the Confederates.
Occupation by Federal troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
----------CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: End----------
CHARLESTOWN, Massachusetts: A. D. 1623.
The first settlement.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
CHARTER OAK, The.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
CHARTER OF FORESTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
CHARTERHOUSE, OR CHARTREUSE.
See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
CHARTISTS.--CHARTISM.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842 and 1848.
CHARTRES, Defeat of the Normans at.
The Norman, Rollo, investing the city of Chartres, sustained
there, on the 20th of July, A. D. 911, the most serious
defeat which he and his pirates ever suffered.
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5.
CHARTREUSE, La Grande.
See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
CHASIDIM, OR CHASIDEES, OR ASSIDEANS, The.
A name, signifying the godly or pious, assumed by a party
among the Jews, in the second century B. C., who resisted the
Grecianizing tendencies of the time under the influence of the
Græco-Syrian domination, and who were the nucleus of the
Maccabean revolt. The later school of the Pharisees is
represented by Ewald (History of Israel, book 5, section
2) to have been the product of a narrowing transformation
of the school of the Chasidim; while the Essenes, in his view,
were a purer residue of the Chasidim "who strove after piety,
yet would not join the Pharisees"; who abandoned "society as
worldly and incurably corrupt," and in whom "the conscience of
the nation, as it were, withdrew into the wilderness."
H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.
A modern sect, borrowing the name, founded by one Israel Baal
Schem, who first appeared in Podolia, in 1740, is said to
embrace most of the Jews in Galicia, Hungary, Southern Russia,
and Wallachia.
H. C. Adams, History of the Jews, page 333.
ALSO IN:
H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 5, chapter 9.
CHASUARII, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.
CHÂTEAU CAMBRESIS, Treaty of (1559):
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CHÂTEAU GALLAIRD.
This was the name given to a famous castle, built by Richard
Cœur de Lion in Normandy, and designed to be the key to the
defences of that important duchy. "As a monument of warlike
skill, his 'Saucy Castle,' Château Gaillard, stands first
among the fortresses of the Middle Ages. Richard fixed its
site where the Seine bends suddenly at Gaillon in a great
semicircle to the north, and where the Valley of Les Andèlys
breaks the line of the chalk cliffs along its bank. The castle
formed part of an intrenched camp which Richard designed to
cover his Norman capital. . . . The easy reduction of Normandy
on the fall of Chateau Gaillard at a later time [when it was
taken by Philip Augustus, of France] proved Richard's
foresight."
J. R. Green, Short History
of the English People, chapter 2, section 9.
CHATEAU THIERRY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CHATEAUVIEUX, Fête to the soldiers of.
See LIBERTY CAP.
CHATHAM, Lord; Administration of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763, and 1765-1768.
And the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CHATILLON, Battles of (1793).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
CHATILLON-SUR-SEINE,
Congress of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
{408}
CHATTANOOGA:
The name.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1862.
Secured by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (August).
Evacuation by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
The siege.
The battle on Lookout Mountain.
The assault of Missionary Ridge.
The Routing of Bragg's army.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
----------CHATTANOOGA: End----------
CHATTI, OR CATTI, The.
"Beyond [the Mattiaci] are the Chatti, whose settlements begin
at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and
marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches.
They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less
frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has
seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit
limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage,
mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and
sagacity. ... Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti
to a campaign."
"The settlements of the Chatti, one of the chief German
tribes, apparently coincide with portions of Westphalia,
Nassau, Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Dr. Latham assumes
the Chatti of Tacitus to be the Suevi of Cæsar. The fact that
the name Chatti does not occur in Cæsar renders this
hypothesis by no means improbable."
Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
and note.
See, also, SUEVI.
CHAUCER, and his times.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.
CHAUCI AND CHERUSCI, The.
"The tribe of the Chauci ... beginning at the Frisian
settlements and occupying a part of the coast, stretches along
the frontier of all the tribes which I have enumerated, till
it reaches with a bend as far as the Chatti. This vast extent
of country is not merely possessed but densely peopled by the
Chauci, the noblest of the German races, a nation who would
maintain their greatness by righteous dealing. Without
ambition, without lawless violence, ... the crowning proof of
their valour and their strength is, that they keep up their
superiority without harm to others. ... Dwelling on one side
of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished,
unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This
was more pleasant than safe, ... and so the Cherusci, ever
reputed good and just, are now called cowards and fools, while
in the case of the victorious Chatti success has been
identified with prudence. The downfall of the Cherusci brought
with it also that of the Fosi, a neighbouring tribe."
"The settlements of the Chauci ... must have included almost
the entire country between the Ems and the Weser--that is,
Oldenburg and part of Hanover--and have taken in portions of
Westphalia about Munster and Paderborn. The Cherusci ...
appear to have occupied Brunswick and the south part of
Hanover. Arminius who destroyed the Roman army under Varus,
was a Cheruscan chief. ... The Fosi ... must have occupied
part of Hanover."
Tacitus, Minor Works, trans. by Church and Brodribb: The
Germany, with Geographical notes.
Bishop Stubbs conjectures that the Chauci, Cherusci, and some
other tribes may have been afterwards comprehended under the
general name "Saxon."
See SAXONS.
CHAZARS, The.
See KHAZARS.
CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
CHEBUCTO.
The original name of the harbor chosen for the site of the
city of Halifax.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and
HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.
CHEIROTONIA.
A vote by show of hands, among the ancient Greeks.
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
CHEMI.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
CHEMNITZ, Battle of (1639).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
CHERBOURG.
Destroyed by the English.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-AUGUST).
CHEROKEE WAR, The.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
CHEROKEES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHEROKEES.
CHERRONESUS, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
CHERRY VALLEY, The massacre at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
CHERSON.
See BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.
CHERSON: A. D. 988.
Taken by the Russians.
"A thousand years after the rest of the Greek nation was sunk
in irremediable slavery, Cherson remained free. Such a
phenomenon as the existence of manly feeling in one city, when
mankind everywhere else slept contented in a state of
political degradation, deserved attentive consideration. ...
Cherson retained its position as an independent State until
the reign of Theophilus [Byzantine emperor A. D. 829-842], who
compelled it to receive a governor from Constantinople; but,
even under the Byzantine government, it continued to defend
its municipal institutions, and, instead of slavishly
soliciting the imperial favour, and adopting Byzantine
manners, it boasted of its constitution and self government.
But it gradually lost its former wealth and extensive trade,
and when Vladimir, the sovereign of Russia, attacked it in
988, it was betrayed into his hands by a priest, who informed
him how to cut off the water. ... Vladimir obtained the hand
of Anne, the sister of the emperors Basil II. and Constantine
VIII., and was baptised and married in the church of the
Panaghia at Cherson. To soothe the vanity of the Empire, he
pretended to retain possession of his conquest as the dowry of
his wife. Many of the priests who converted the Russians to
Christianity, and many of the artists who adorned the earliest
Russian churches with paintings and mosaics, were natives of
Cherson."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to
1057.
CHERSONESE, The Golden.
See CHRYSE.
CHERSONESUS.
The Greek name for a peninsula, or "land-island," applied most
especially to the long tongue of land between the Hellespont
and the Gulf of Melas.
CHERUSCI, The.
See CHAUCI.
{409}
CHESAPEAKE AND SHANNON, The fight of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1812-1813.
CHESS, Origin of the game of.
"If we wished to know, for instance, who has taught us the
game of chess, the name of chess would tell us better than
anything else that it came to the West from Persia. In spite
of all that has been written to the contrary, chess was
originally the game of Kings, the game of Shahs. This word
Shah became in Old French eschac, Italian scacco, German
Schach; while the Old French eschecs was further corrupted
into chess. The more original form chec has likewise been
preserved, though we little think of it when we draw a cheque,
or when we suffer a check, or when we speak of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. The great object of the chess-player is to
protect the king, and when the king is in danger, the opponent
is obliged to say 'check,' i. e., Shah, the king. ... After
this the various meanings of check, cheque, or exchequer
become easily intelligible, though it is quite true that if
similar changes of meaning, which in our case we can watch by
the light of history, had taken place in the dimness of
prehistoric ages, it would be difficult to convince the
sceptic that exchequer, or scaccarium, the name of the
chess-board was afterwards used for the checkered cloth on
which accounts were calculated by means of counters, and that
a checkered career was a life with many cross-lines."
F. Max Müller, Biog. of Words, chapter 4.
CHESTER, Origin of.
See DEVA.
CHESTER, The Palatine Earldom.
See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES;
also WALES, PRINCE OF.
CHESTER, Battle of.
One of the fiercest of the battles fought between the Welsh
and the Angles, A. D. 613. The latter were the victors.
CHEVY CHASE.
See OTTER BURN, BATTLE OF.
CHEYENNES, OR SHEYENNES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CHIAPAS: Ruins of ancient civilization in.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS; and MEXICO, ANCIENT.
CHIARI, Battle Of(1701).
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
CHIBCHAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.
CHICAGO: A. D. 1812.
Evacuation of the Fort Dearborn Post, and massacre of most of
the retreating garrison.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
CHICAGO: A. D. 1860.
The Republican National Convention.
Nomination of Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
CHICAGO: A. D. 1871.
The great Fire.
"The greatest event in the history of Chicago was the Great
Fire, as it is termed, which broke out on the evening of Oct.
8, 1871. Chicago was at that time [except in the business
centre] a city of wood. For a long time prior to the evening
referred to there had been blowing a hot wind from the
southwest, which had dried everything to the inflammability of
tinder, and it was upon a mass of sun and wind-dried wooden
structures that the fire began its work. It is supposed to
have originated from the accidental upsetting of a kerosene
lamp in a cow barn [Mrs. O'Leary's] on De Koven Street, near
the corner of Jefferson, on the west side of the river. This
region was composed hugely of shanties, and the fire spread
rapidly, very soon crossing the river to the South Side, and
fastening on that portion of the city which contained nearly
all the leading business houses, and which was built up very
largely with stone and brick. But it seemed to enkindle as if
it were tinder. Some buildings were blown up with gunpowder,
which, in connection with the strong southwest gale, prevented
the extension of the flames to the south. The fire swept on
Monday steadily to the north, including everything from the
lake to the South Branch, and then crossed to the North Side,
and, taking in everything from the lake to the North Branch,
it burned northward for a distance of three miles, where it
died out at the city limits, when there was nothing more to
burn. In the midst of this broad area of devastation, on the
north side of Washington Square, between Clark Street and
Dearborn Avenue, the well-known Ogden house stands amid trees
of the ancient forest and surrounded by extensive grounds, the
solitary relic of that section of the city before the fiery
flood. The total area of the land burned over was 2,100 acres.
Nearly 20,000 buildings were consumed; 100,000 people were
rendered homeless; 200 lives were lost, and the grand total of
values destroyed is estimated at $200,000,000. Of this vast
sum, nearly one-half was covered by insurance, but under the
tremendous losses many of the insurance companies were forced
to the wall, and went into liquidation, and the victims of the
conflagration recovered only about one-fifth of their aggregate
losses. Among the buildings which were burned were the
court-house, custom-house and post office, chamber of
commerce, three railway depots, nine daily newspaper offices,
thirty-two hotels, ten theatres and halls, eight public
schools and some branch school buildings, forty-one churches,
five elevators, and all the national banks. If the Great Fire
was an event without parallel in its dimensions and the
magnitude of its dire results, the charity which followed it
was equally unrivalled in its extent. ... All the civilized
world appeared to instantly appreciate the calamity. Food,
clothing, supplies of every kind, money, messages of
affection, sympathy, etc., began pouring in at once in a
stream that appeared endless and bottomless. In all, the
amount contributed reached over $7,000,000. ... It was
believed by many that the fire had forever blotted out Chicago
from the list of great American cities, but the spirit of her
people was undaunted by calamity, and, encouraged by the
generous sympathy and help from all quarters, they set to work
at once to repair their almost ruined fortunes. ... Rebuilding
was at once commenced, and, within a year after the fire, more
than $40,000,000 were expended in improvements. The city came
up from its ruins far more palatial, splendid, strong and
imperishable than before. In one sense the fire was a benefit.
Its consequence was a class of structures far better, in every
essential respect, than before the conflagration. Fire-proof
buildings became the rule, the limits of wood were carefully
restricted, and the value of the reconstructed portion
immeasurably exceeded that of the city which had been
destroyed."
Marquis' Handbook of Chicago, page 22.
{410}
"Thousands of people on the North Side fled far out on the
prairie, but other thousands, less fortunate, were
hemmed in before they could reach the country, and were driven
to the Sands, a group of beach-hillocks fronting on Lake
Michigan. These had been covered with rescued merchandise and
furniture. The flames fell fiercely upon the heaps of goods,
and the miserable refugees were driven into the black waves,
where they stood neck-deep in chilling water, scourged by
sheets of sparks and blowing sand. A great number of horses
had been collected here, and they too dashed into the sea,
where scores of them were drowned. Toward evening the Mayor
sent a fleet of tow-boats which took off the fugitives at the
Sands. When the next day [Tuesday, October 10] dawned, the
prairie was covered with the calcined ruins of more than
17,000 buildings. ... This was the greatest and most
disastrous conflagration on record. The burning of Moscow, in
1812, caused a loss amounting to £30,000,000; but the loss at
Chicago was in excess of this amount. The Great Fire of
London, in 1006, devastated a tract of 430 acres, and
destroyed 13,000 buildings; but that of Chicago swept over
1,900 acres, and burned more than 17,000 buildings."
M. F. Sweetser, Chicago ("Cities of the World," volume 1).
The following is the statement of area burned over, and of
property destroyed, made by the Chicago Relief and Aid
Society, and which is probably authoritative: "The total area
burned over in the city, including streets, was 2,124 acres,
or nearly three and one-third square miles. This area
contained about 73 miles of streets, 18,000 buildings, and the
homes of 100,000 people."
A. T. Andreas, History of Chicago, volume 2, page 760.
ALSO IN:
E. Colbert and E. Chamberlain, Chicago and the Great
Conflagration.
CHICAGO: A. D. 1886-1887.
The Haymarket Conspiracy.
Crime of the Anarchists.
Their trial and execution.
"In February, 1886, Messrs. McCormick, large
agricultural-machine makers of Chicago, refusing to yield to
the dictation of their workmen, who required them to discharge
some non-Union hands they had taken on, announced a
'lock-out,' and prepared to resume business as soon as
possible with a new staff. Spies, Lingg, and other German
Anarchists saw their opportunity. They persuaded the ousted
workmen to prevent the 'scabs,'--anglicé, 'blacklegs,'--from
entering the works on the day of their reopening. Revolvers,
rifles, and bombs were readily found, the latter being
entrusted principally to the hands of professional 'Reds.' The
most violent appeals were made to the members of Unions and
the populace generally; but though a succession of riots were
got up, they were easily quelled by the resolute action of the
police, backed by the approval of the immense majority of the
people of Chicago. Finally, a mass meeting in arms was called
to take place on May 4th, 1886, at 7.30 p.m., in the
Haymarket, a long and recently widened street of the town, for
the express purpose of denouncing the police. But the
intention of the Anarchists was not merely to denounce the
police: this was the pretext only. The prisons were to be
forced, the police-stations blown up, the public buildings
attacked, and the onslaught on property and capital to be
inaugurated by the devastation of one of the fairest cities of
the Union. By 8 p. m. a mob of some three or four thousand
persons had been collected, and were regaled by speeches that
became more violent as the night wore on. At 10 p. m. the
police appeared in force. The crowd were commanded to disperse
peaceably. A voice shouted: 'We are peaceable.' Captain
Schaack says this was a signal. The words were hardly uttered
when a spark flashed through the air. It looked like the
lighted remnant of a cigar, but hissed like a miniature
sky-rocket.' It was a bomb, and fell amid the ranks of the
police. A terrific explosion followed, and immediately
afterwards the mob opened fire upon the police. The latter,
stunned for a moment, soon recovered themselves, returned the
fire, charged the mob, and in a couple of minutes dispersed it
in every direction. But eight of their comrades lay dead upon
the pavement, and scores of others were weltering in their
blood around the spot. Such was the Chicago outrage of May
4th, 1886."
The Spectator, April 19, 1890 (reviewing Shaack's "Anarchy
and Anarchists").
The Anarchists who were arrested and brought to trial for this
crime were eight in number,--August Spies, Michael Schwab,
Samuel Fielden, Albert H. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George
Engel, Louis Lingg, and Oscar W. Neebe. The trial began July
14, 1886. The evidence closed on the 10th of August; the
argument of council consumed more than a week, and on the 20th
of August the jury brought in a verdict which condemned Neebe
to imprisonment for fifteen years, and all the other prisoners
to death. Lingg committed suicide in prison; the sentences of
Schwab and Fielding were commuted by the Governor to
imprisonment for life; the remaining four were hanged on the
11th of November, 1887.
Judge Gary, The Chicago Anarchists of 1886 (Century Mag.,
April, 1893).
ALSO IN:
M. T. Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists.
CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.
The World's Columbian Exposition.
"As a fitting mode of celebrating the four hundredth
anniversary of the landing of Columbus on Oct. 12, 1492, it
was proposed to have a universal exhibition in the United
States, The idea was first taken up by citizens of New York,
where subscriptions to the amount of $5,000,000 were obtained
from merchants and capitalists before application was made for
the sanction and support of the Federal Government. When the
matter came up in Congress the claims of Chicago were
considered superior, and a bill was passed and approved on
April 25, 1890, entitled 'An Act to provide for celebrating
the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by
Christopher Columbus, by holding an international exhibition
of arts, industries, manufactures, and the products of the
soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of
Illinois.' The act provided for the appointment of
commissioners who should organize the exposition. ... When the
organization was completed and the stipulated financial
support from the citizens and municipality of Chicago assured,
President Harrison, on Dec. 24, 1890, issued a proclamation
inviting all the nations of the earth to participate in the
World's Columbian Exposition. Since the time was too short to
have the grounds and buildings completed for the summer of
1892, as was originally intended, the opening of the
exposition was announced for May, 1893. When the work was
fairly begun it was accelerated, as many as 10,000 workmen
being employed at one time, in order to have the buildings
ready to be dedicated with imposing ceremonies on Oct. 12.
1892. in commemoration of the exact date of the discovery of
America."
Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1891, page 837.
SEE ALSO
C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham,
Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847
On May 1, 1893, the Fair was opened with appropriate
ceremonies by President Cleveland.
{411}
CHICASAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
CHICHIMECS, The.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
CHICKAHOMINY,
Battles on the (Gaines' Mill, 1862; Cold Harbor, 1864).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
CHICKAMAUGA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
CHICORA.
The name given to the region of South Carolina by its Spanish
discoverers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
CHILDEBERT I.
King of the Franks, at Paris, A. D. 511-558.
Childebert II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 575-596;
(Burgundy), 593-596.
Childebert III., King of the Franks
(Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 695-711.
CHILDERIC II.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 660-673.
Childeric III., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 742-752.
CHILDREN OF REBECCA.
See REBECCAITES.
CHILDREN'S CRUSADE, The.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
CHILE:
The Araucanians.
"The land of Chili, from 30° Ssouth latitude, was and is still
in part occupied by several tribes who speak the same
language. They form the fourth and most southern group of the
Andes people, and are called Araucanians. Like almost all
American tribal names, the term Araucanian is indefinite;
sometimes it is restricted to a single band, and sometimes so
extended as to embrace a group of tribes. Some regard them as
a separate family, calling them Chilians, while others, whom
we follow, regard them as the southern members of the Andes
group, and still others class them with the Pampas Indians.
The name Araucanian is an improper one, introduced by the
Spaniards, but it is so firmly fixed that it cannot be
changed. The native names are Moluche (warriors) and Alapuche
(natives). Originally they extended from Coquimbo to the
Chonos Archipelago and from ocean to ocean, and even now they
extend, though not very far, to the east of the Cordilleras.
They are divided into four (or, if we include the Picunche,
five) tribes, the names of which all end in 'tche' or 'che,'
the word for man. Other minor divisions exist. The entire
number of the Araucanians is computed at about 30,000 souls,
but it is decreasing by sickness as well as by vice. They are
owners of their land and have cattle in abundance, pay no
taxes, and even their labor in the construction of highways is
only light. They are warlike, brave, and still enjoy some of
the blessings of the Inca civilization; only the real, western
Araucanians in Chili have attained to a sedentary life. Long
before the arrival of the Spaniards the government of the
Araucanians offered a striking resemblance to the military
aristocracy of the old world. All the rest that has been
written of their high stage of culture has proved to be an
empty picture of fancy. They followed agriculture, built fixed
houses, and made at least an attempt at a form of government,
but they still remain, as a whole, cruel, plundering savages."
The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
volume 6, pages 232-234.
"The Araucanians inhabit the delightful region between the
Andes and the sea, and between the rivers Bio-bio and
Valdivia. They derive the appellation of Araucanians from the
province of Arauco. .... The political division of the
Araucanian state is regulated with much intelligence. It is
divided from north to south into four governments. ... Each
government is divided into five provinces, and each province
into nine counties. The state consists of three orders of
nobility, each being subordinate to the other, and all having
their respective vassals. They are the Toquis, the
Apo-Ulmenes, and the Ulmenes. The Toquis, or governors, are
four in number. They are independent of each other, but
confederated for the public welfare. The Arch-Ulmenes govern
the provinces under their respective Toquis. The Ulmenes
govern the counties. The upper ranks, generally, are likewise
comprehended under the term Ulmenes."
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 1, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
J. I. Molina, Geographical, Natural and Civil History
of Chili, volume 2, book 2.
CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
The Spanish conquest.
The Araucanian War of Independence.
"In the year 1450 the Peruvian Inca, Yupanqui, desirous of
extending his dominions towards the south, stationed himself
with a powerful army at Atacama. Thence he dispatched a force
of 10,000 men to Chili, under the command of Chinchiruca, who,
overcoming almost incredible obstacles, marched through a
sandy desert as far as Copiapo, a distance of 80 leagues. The
Copiapins flew to arms, and prepared to resist this invasion.
But Chinchiruca, true to the policy which the Incas always
observed, stood upon the defensive, trusting to persuasion
rather than to force for the accomplishment of his designs.
... While he proffered peace, he warned them of the
consequences of resisting the 'Children of the Sun.'" After
wavering for a time, the Copiapins submitted themselves to the
rule of the Incas. "The adjoining province of Coquimbo was
easily subjugated, and steadily advancing, the Peruvians, some
six years after their first entering the country, firmly
established themselves in the valley of Chili, at a distance
of more than 200 leagues from the frontier of Atacama. The
'Children of the Sun' had met thus far with little resistance,
and, encouraged by success, they marched their victorious
armies against the Purumancians, a warlike people living
beyond the river Rapel." Here they were desperately resisted,
in a battle which lasted three days, and from which both
armies withdrew, undefeated and unvictorious. On learning this
result, the Inca Yupanqui ordered his generals to relinquish
all attempts at further conquest, and to "seek, by the
introduction of wise laws, and by instructing the people in
agriculture and the arts, to establish themselves more firmly
in the territory already acquired. To what extent the
Peruvians were successful in the endeavor to ingraft their
civilization, religion, and customs upon the Chilians, it is
at this distant day impossible to determine, since the
earliest historians differ widely on the subject.
{412}
Certain it is, that on the arrival of the Spaniards the Incas,
at least nominally, ruled the country, and received an annual
tribute of gold from the people. In the year 1535, after the
death of the unfortunate Inca Atahuallpa, Diego Almagro, fired
by the love of glory and the thirst for gold, yielded to the
solicitations of Francisco Pizarro, the conqueror of Peru, and
set out for the subjection of Chili, which, as yet, had not
been visited by any European. His army consisted of 570
Spaniards, well equipped, and 15,000 Peruvian auxiliaries.
Regardless of difficulties and dangers this impetuous soldier
selected the near route that lay along the summits of the
Andes, in preference to the more circuitous road passing
through the desert of Atacama. Upon the horrors of this march,
of which so thrilling an account is given by Prescott in the
'Conquest of Peru,' it is unnecessary for us to dwell; suffice
it to state that, on reaching Copiapo no less than one-fourth
of his Spanish troops, and two-thirds of his Indian
auxiliaries, had perished from the effects of cold, fatigue
and starvation. ... Everywhere the Spaniards met with a
friendly reception from the natives, who regarded them as a
superior race of beings, and the after conquest of the country
would probably have been attended with no difficulty had a
conciliatory policy been adopted; but this naturally
inoffensive people, aroused by acts of the most barbarous
cruelty, soon flew to arms. Despite the opposition of the
natives, who were now rising in every direction to oppose his
march, Almagro kept on, overcoming every obstacle, until he
reached the river Cachapoal, the northern boundary of the
Purumancian territory." Here he met with so stubborn and
effective a resistance that he abandoned his expedition and
returned to Peru, where, soon after, he lost his life [see
PERU: A. D. 1533-1548] in a contest with the Pizarros.
"Pizarro, ever desirous of conquering Chili, in 1540
dispatched Pedro Valdivia for that purpose, with some 200
Spanish soldiers and a large body of Peruvians;" The invasion
of Valdivia was opposed from the moment he entered the
country; but he pushed on until he reached the river Mapoclio,
and "encamped upon the site of the present capital of Chili.
Valdivia, finding the location pleasant, and the surrounding
plain fertile, here founded a city on the 24th of February,
1541. To this first European settlement in Chili he gave the
name of Santiago, in honor of the patron saint of Spain. He
laid out the town in Spanish style; and as a place of refuge
in case of attack, erected a fort upon a steep rocky hill,
rising some 200 feet above the plain." The Mapochins soon
attacked the infant town, drove its people to the fort and
burned their settlement; but were finally repulsed with
dreadful slaughter. "On the arrival of a second army from
Peru, Valdivia, whose ambition had always been to conquer the
southern provinces of Chili, advanced into the country of the
Purumancians. Here history is probably defective, as we have
no account of any battles fought with these brave people. ...
We simply learn that the Spanish leader eventually gained
their good-will, and established with them an alliance both
offensive and defensive. ... In the following year (1546) the
Spanish forces crossed the river Maulé, the southern boundary
of the Purumancians, and advanced toward the Itata. While
encamped near the latter river, they were attacked at dead of
night by a body of Araucanians. So unexpected was the approach
of this new enemy, that many of the horses were captured, and
the army with difficulty escaped total destruction. After this
terrible defeat, Valdivia finding himself unable to proceed,
returned to Santiago." Soon afterwards he went to Peru for
reinforcements and was absent two years; but came back, at the
end of that time, with a large band of followers, and marched
to the South. "Reaching the bay of Talcahuano without having
met with any opposition, on the 5th of October, 1550, he
founded the city of Concepcion on a site at present known as
Penco." The Araucanians, advancing boldly upon the Spaniards
at Concepcion, were defeated in a furious battle which cost
the invaders many lives. Three years later, in December, 1553,
the Araucanians had their revenge, routing the Spaniards
utterly and pursuing them so furiously that only two of their
whole army escaped. Valdivia was among the prisoners taken and
was slain. Again and again, under the lead of a youthful hero,
Lautaro, and a vigorous toqui, or chief, named Caupolican, the
Araucanians assailed the invaders of their country with
success; but the latter increased in numbers and gained
ground, at last, for a time, building towns and extending
settlements in the Araucanian territory. The indomitable
people were not broken in spirit, however; and in 1598, by an
universal and simultaneous rising, they expelled the Spaniards
from almost every settlement they had made. "In 1602 ... of
the numerous Spanish forts and settlements south of the
Bio-Bio, Nacimiento and Arauco only had not fallen. Valdivia
and Osorno were afterward rebuilt. About the same time a fort
was erected at Boroa. This fort was soon after abandoned.
Valdivia, Osorno, Nacimiento, and Arauco still remain. But of
all the 'cities of the plain' lying within the boundaries of
the haughty Araucanians, not one ever rose from its ashes;
their names exist only in history; and the sites where they
once flourished are now marked by ill-defined and grass-grown
ruins. From the period of their fall dates the independence of
the Araucanian nation; for though a hundred years more were
wasted in the vain attempt to reconquer the heroic people ...
the Spaniards, weary of constant war, and disheartened by the
loss of so much blood and treasure, were finally compelled to
sue for peace; and in 1724 a treaty was ratified,
acknowledging their freedom, and establishing the limits of
their territory."
E. H. Smith, The Araucanians, chapter 11-14.
ALSO IN:
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese S. Am.,
volume 1, chapter 12-14.
J. I. Molina; Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,
volume 2, book 1, 3-4.
CHILE: A. D. 1568.
The Audiencia established.
See AUDIENCIAS.
{413}
CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
The achievement of independence.
San Martin, the Liberator.
"Chili first threw off the Spanish yoke in September, 1810 [on
the pretext of fidelity to the Bourbon king dethroned by
Napoleon], but the national independence was not fully
established till April 1818. During the intermediate period,
the dissensions of the different parties; their disputes as to
the form of government and the law of election; with other
distracting causes, arising out of the ambition of turbulent
individuals, and the inexperience of the whole nation in
political affairs; so materially retarded the union of the
country, that the Spaniards, by sending expeditions from Peru,
were enabled, in 1814, to regain their lost authority in
Chili. Meanwhile the Government of Buenos Ayres, the
independence of which had been established in 1810 [see
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820], naturally dreaded that
the Spaniards would not long be confined to the western side
of the Andes; but would speedily make a descent upon the
provinces of the River Plate, of which Buenos Ayres is the
capital. In order to guard against this formidable danger,
they bravely resolved themselves to become the invaders, and
by great exertions equipped an army of 4,000 men. The command
of this force was given to General Don José de San Martin, a
native of the town of Yapeyu in Paraguay; a man greatly
beloved by all ranks, and held in such high estimation by the
people, that to his personal exertions the formation of this
army is chiefly due. With these troops San Martin entered
Chili by a pass over the Andes heretofore deemed inaccessible,
and on the 12th of February, 1817, attacked and completely
defeated the royal army at Chacabuco. The Chilians, thus freed
from the immediate presence of the enemy, elected General
O'Higgins [see PERU: A. D. 1550-1816] as Director; and he, in
1818, offered the Chilians a constitution, and nominated five
senators to administer the affairs of the country. This
meritorious officer, an Irishman by descent, though born in
Chili, has ever since [1825] remained at the head of the
government. It was originally proposed to elect General San
Martin as Director; but this he steadily refused, proposing
his companion in arms, O'Higgins, in his stead. The remnant of
the Spanish army took refuge in Talcuhuana, a fortified
sea-port near Conception, on the southern frontier of Chili.
Vigorous measures were taken to reduce this place, but, in the
beginning of 1818, the Viceroy of Peru, by draining that
province of its best troops, sent off a body of 5,000 men
under General Osorio, who succeeded in joining the Spaniards
shut up in Talcuhuana. Thus reinforced, the Royal army,
amounting in all to 8,000, drove back the Chilians, marched on
the capital, and gained other considerable advantages;
particularly in a night attack at Talca, on the 19th of March
1818, where the Royalists almost entirely dispersed the
Patriot forces. San Martin, however, who, after the battle of
Chacabuco, had been named Commander-in-chief of the united
armies of Chili and Buenos Ayres," rallied his army and
equipped it anew so quickly that, "on the 5th of April, only
17 days after his defeat, he engaged, and, after an obstinate
and sanguinary conflict, completely routed the Spanish army on
the plains of Maypo. From that day Chili may date her complete
independence; for although a small portion of the Spanish
troops endeavoured to make a stand at Conception, they were
soon driven out and the country left in the free possession of
the Patriots. Having now time to breathe, the Chilian
Government, aided by that of Buenos Ayres, determined to
attack the Royalists in their turn, by sending an armament
against Peru [see PERU; A. D. 1820-1826]--a great and bold
measure, originating with San Martin."
Capt. B. Hall, Extracts from a Journal, volume 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapter 4-7 (volume 1).
T. Sutcliffe, Sixteen Years in Chili and Peru chapter 2-4.
Gen. B. Mitre, The Emancipation of S. America:
History of an Martin.
CHILE: A. D. 1820-1826.
Operations in Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
A successful oligarchy and its constitution.
The war with Peru and Bolivia.
"After the perfection of its national independence, the
Chilean government soon passed into the permanent control of
civilians, 'while the other governments of the west coast
remained prizes for military chieftains.' Its present
constitution was framed in 1833, and though it is only half a
century old 'it is the oldest written national constitution in
force in all the world except our own, unless the Magna Charta
of England be included in the category.' The political history
of Chile during the fifty years of its life has been that of a
well ordered commonwealth, but one of a most unusual and
interesting sort. Its government has never been forcibly
overthrown, and only one serious attempt at revolution has
been made. Chile is in name and in an important sense a
republic, and yet its government is an oligarchy. Suffrage is
restricted to those male citizens who are registered, who are
twenty-five years old if unmarried and twenty-one if married,
and who can read and write; and there is also a stringent
property qualification. The consequence is that the privilege
of voting is confined to an aristocracy: in 1876, the total
number of ballots thrown for president was only 46,114 in a
population of about two and a quarter millions. The president
of Chile has immense powers of nomination and appointment, and
when he is a man of vigorous will he tyrannically sways public
policy, and can almost always dictate the name of his
successor. The government has thus become practically vested
in a comparatively small number of leading Chilean families.
There is no such thing as 'public opinion' in the sense in
which we use the phrase, and the newspapers, though ably
conducted, do not attempt, as they do not desire, to change
the existing order of things. 'History,' says Mr. Browne,
'does not furnish an example of a more powerful political
"machine" under the title of republic; nor, I am bound to say,
one which has been more ably directed so far as concerns the
aggrandizement of the country, or more honestly administered
so far as concerns pecuniary corruption.' The population of
Chile doubled between 1843 and 1875; the quantity of land
brought under tillage was quadrupled; ... more than 1,000
miles of railroad were built; a foreign export trade of
$31,695,039 was reported in 1878; and two powerful iron-clads,
which were destined to playa most important part in Chilean
affairs, were built in England. Meanwhile, the constitution
was officially interpreted so as to guarantee religious
toleration, and the political power of the Roman Catholic
priesthood diminished. Almost everything good, except home
manufactures and popular education, flourished. The
development of the nation in these years was on a wonderful
scale for a South American state, and the contrast between
Chile and Peru was peculiarly striking. ... Early in 1879
began the great series of events which were to make the
fortune of Chile. We use the word 'great,' in its low,
superficial sense, and without the attribution of any moral
significance to the adjective.
{414}
The aggressor in the war between Chile and Peru was inspired
by the most purely selfish motives, and it remains to be seen
whether the just gods will not win in the long run, even
though the game of their antagonists be played with heavily
plated iron-clads. ... At the date last mentioned Chile was
suffering, like many other nations, from a general depression
in business pursuits. Its people were in no serious trouble,
but as a government it was in a bad way. ... The means to keep
up a sinking fund for the foreign debt had failed, and the
Chilean five per cents were quoted in London at sixty-four. 'A
political cloud also was darkening again in the north, in the
renewal of something like a confederation between Peru and
Bolivia.' In this state of things the governing oligarchy of
Chile decided, rather suddenly, Mr. Browne thinks, upon a
scheme which was sure to result either in splendid prosperity
or absolute ruin, and which contemplated nothing less than a
war of conquest against Peru and Bolivia, with a view to
seizing the most valuable territory of the former country.
There is a certain strip of land bordering upon the Pacific
and about 400 miles long, of which the northern three quarters
belonged to Peru and Bolivia, the remaining one quarter to
Chile. Upon this land a heavy rain never falls, and often
years pass in which the soil does not feel a shower. ... Its
money value is immense. 'From this region the world derives
almost its whole supply of nitrates--chiefly saltpetre--and
of iodine;' its mountains, also, are rich in metals, and great
deposits of guano are found in the highlands bordering the
sea. The nitrate-bearing country is a plain, from fifty to
eighty miles wide, the nitrate lying in layers just below a
thin sheet of impacted stones, gravel, and sand. The export of
saltpetre from this region was valued in 1882 at nearly
$30,000,000, and the worth of the Peruvian section, which is
much the largest and most productive, is estimated, for
government purposes, at a capital of $600,000,000. Chile was,
naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her
own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus to
rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to
war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first
attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta,
with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate
works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good
pretext; and when Peru attempted intervention her envoy was
confronted with Chile's knowledge of a secret treaty between
Peru and Bolivia, and war was formally declared by Chile upon
Peru, April 5, 1879. This war lasted, with some breathing
spaces, for almost exactly five years. At the outset the two
belligerent powers--Bolivia being soon practically out of the
contest--seemed to be about equal in ships, soldiers, and
resources; but the supremacy which Chile soon gained upon the
seas substantially determined the war in her favor. Each
nation owned two powerful iron-clads, and six months were
employed in settling the question of naval superiority. ... On
the 21st of May, 1879, the Peruvian fleet attacked and almost
destroyed the Chilean wooden frigates which were blockading
Iquique; but in chasing a Chilean corvette the larger Peruvian
iron-clad--the Independencia--ran too near the shore, and was
fatally wrecked. 'So Peru lost one of her knights. The game
she played with the other--the Huascar--was admirable, but a
losing one;' and on the 8th of October of the same year the
Huascar was attacked by the Chilean fleet, which included two
iron-clads, and was finally captured' after a desperate
resistance.'... From this moment the Peruvian coast was at
Chile's mercy: the Chilean arms prevailed in every pitched
battle, at San Francisco [November 16, 1879], at Tacna [May
26, 1880], at Arica [June 7, 1880]; and finally, on the 17th
of January, 1881, after a series of actions which resembled in
some of their details the engagements that preceded our
capture of the city of Mexico [ending in what is known as the
Battle of Miraflores], the victorious army of Chile took
possession of Lima, the capital of Peru. ... The results of
the war have thus far exceeded the wildest hopes of Chile. She
has taken absolute possession of the whole nitrate region, has
cut Bolivia off from the sea, and achieved the permanent
dissolution of the Peru-Bolivian confederation. As a
consequence, her foreign trade has doubled, the revenue of her
government has been trebled, and the public debt greatly
reduced. The Chilean bonds, which were sold at 64 in London in
January, 1879, and fell to 60 in March of that year, at the
announcement of the war, were quoted at 95 in January, 1884."
The Growing Power of the Republic of Chile (Atlantic
Monthly, July, 1884).
ALSO IN:
H. Birkedal, The late War in South America (Overland Monthly,
January, February, and March, 1884).
C. R. Markham, The War between Peru and Chile.
R. N. Boyd, Chile, chapter 16-17.
Message of the President of the U. S., transmitting Papers
relating to the War in South America, January 26, 1882.
T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles since Waterloo; chapter 23.
See, also, PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
The presidency and dictatorship of Balmaceda.
His conflict with the Congress.
Civil war.
"Save in the one struggle in which the parties resorted to
arms, the political development of Chili was free from civil
disturbances, and the ruling class was distinguished among the
Spanish-American nations not only for wealth and education,
but for its talent for government and love of constitutional
liberty. The republic was called 'the England of South
America,' and it was a common boast that in Chili a
pronunciamiento or a revolution was impossible. The spirit of
modern Liberalism became more prevalent, ... As the Liberal
party became all-powerful it split into factions, divided by
questions of principle and by struggles for leadership and
office. ... The patronage of the Chilian President is
enormous, embracing not only the general civil service, but
local officials, except in the municipalities, and all
appointments in the army and navy and in the telegraph and
railroad services and the giving out of contracts. The
President has always been able to select his successor, and
has exercised this power, usually in harmony with the wishes
of influential statesmen, sometimes calling a conference of
party chiefs to decide on a candidate. In the course of time
the more advanced wing of the Liberals grew more numerous than
the Moderates. The most radical section had its nucleus in a
Reform Club in Santiago, composed of young university men, of
whom Balmaceda was the finest orator. Entering Congress in
1868, he took a leading part in debates. ...
{415}
In 1885 he was the most popular man in the country; but his
claim to the presidential succession was contested by various
other aspirants--older politicians and leaders of factions
striving for supremacy in Congress. He was elected by an
overwhelming majority, and as President enjoyed an unexampled
degree of popularity. For two or three years the politicians
who had been his party associates worked in harmony with his
ideas. ... At the flood of the democratic tide he was the most
popular man in South America. But when the old territorial
families saw the seats in Congress and the posts in the civil
service that had been their prerogative filled by new men, and
fortunes made by upstarts where all chances had been at their
disposal, then a reaction set in, corruption was scented, and
Moderate Liberals, joining hands with the Nationalists and the
reviving Conservative party, formed an opposition of
respectable strength. In the earlier part of his
administration Balmaceda had the co-operation of the
Nationalists, who were represented in the Cabinet. In the last
two years of his term, when the time drew near for selecting
his successor, defection and revolt and the rivalries of
aspirants for the succession threw the party into disorder and
angered its hitherto unquestioned leader. ... In January,
1890, the Opposition were strong enough to place their
candidate in the chair when the House of Representatives
organized. The ministry resigned, and a conflict between the
Executive and legislative branches of the Government was
openly begun when the President appointed a Cabinet of his own
selection. ... This ministry had to face an overwhelming
majority against the President, which treated him as a
dictator and began to pass hostile laws and resolutions that
were vetoed, and refused to consider the measures that he
recommended. The ministers were cited before the Chambers and
questioned about the manner of their appointment. They either
declined to answer, or answered in a way that increased the
animosity of Congress, which finally passed a vote of censure,
in obedience to which, as was usual, the Cabinet resigned.
Then Balmaceda appointed a ministry in open defiance of
Congress, with Sanfuentes at its head, the man who was already
spoken of as his selected candidate for the presidency. He
prepared for the struggle that he invited by removing the
chiefs of the administration of the departments and replacing
them with men devoted to himself and his policy, and making
changes in the police, the militia, and, to some extent, in
the army and navy commands. The press denounced him as a
dictator, and indignation meetings were held in every town.
Balmaceda and his supporters pretended to be not only the
champions of the people against the aristocracy, but of the
principle of Chili for the Chilians."
Appleton's Annual Cyclop., 1891, pages 123-124.
"The conflict between President Balmaceda and Congress ripened
into revolution. On January 1, 1891, the Opposition members of
the Senate and House of Deputies met, and signed an Act
declaring that the President was unworthy of his post, and
that he was no longer head of the State nor President of the
Republic, as he had violated the Constitution. On January 7
the navy declared in favour of the Legislature, and against
Balmaceda. The President denounced the navy as traitors,
abolished all the laws of the country, declared himself
Dictator, and proclaimed martial law. It was a reign of
terror. The Opposition recruited an army in the Island of
Santa Maria under General Urrutia and Commander Canto. On
February 14 a severe fight took place with the Government
troops in Iquique, and the Congressional army took possession
of Pisagua. In April, President Balmaceda ... delivered a long
message, denouncing the navy. ... The contest continued, and
April 7, Arica, in the province of Tarapaca, was taken by the
revolutionists. Some naval fights occurred later, and the
iron-clad Blanco Encalada was blown up by the Dictator's
torpedo cruisers. Finally, on August 21, General Canto landed
at Concon, ten miles north of Valparaiso. Balmaceda's forces
attacked immediately and were routed, losing 3,500 killed and
wounded. The Congress army lost 600. On the 28th a decisive
battle was fought at Placilla, near Valparaiso. The Dictator
had 12,000 troops, and the opposing army 10,000. Balmaceda's
forces were completely routed after five hours' hard fighting,
with a loss of 1,500 men. Santiago formally surrendered, and
the triumph of the Congress party was complete. A Junta,
headed by Señor Jorge Montt, took charge of affairs at
Valparaiso August 30. Balmaceda, who had taken refuge at the
Argentine Legation in Santiago, was not able to make his
escape, and to avoid capture, trial, and punishment, committed
suicide, September 20, by shooting himself. On the 19th
November Admiral Jorge Montt was chosen by the Electoral
College, at Santiago, President of Chili, and on December 26
he was installed with great ceremony and general rejoicings."
Annual Register, 1891, page 420.
CHILIARCHS.
Captains of thousands, in the army of the Vandals.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 3, chapter 2.
CHILLIANWALLAH, Battle of (1849).
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
CHILPERIC I.,
King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 561-584.
Chilperic II., King of the Franks, A. D. 715-720.
CHILTERN HUNDREDS,
Applying for the Stewardship of the.
A seat in the British House of Commons "cannot be resigned,
nor can a man who has once formally taken his seat for one
constituency throw it up and contest another. Either a
disqualification must be incurred, or the House must declare
the seat vacant." The necessary disqualification can be
incurred by accepting an office of profit under the
Crown,--within certain official categories. "Certain old
offices of nominal value in the gift of the Treasury are now
granted, as of course, to members who wish to resign their
seats in order to be quit of Parliamentary duties or to
contest another constituency. These offices are the
Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds [Crown property in
Buckinghamshire], of the manors of East Hendred, Northstead,
or Hempholme, and the escheatorship of Munster. The office is
resigned as soon as it has operated to vacate the seat and
sever the tie between the member and his constituents."
Sir W. R. Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.,
volume 1, page 84.
CHIMAKUAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.
CHIMARIKAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.
{416}
CHINA:
The names of the Country.
"That spacious seat of ancient civilization which we call
China has loomed always so large to western eyes, ... that, at
eras far apart, we find it to have been distinguished by
different appellations according as it was regarded as the
terminus of a southern sea-route coasting the great peninsulas
and islands of Asia, or as that of a northern land route
traversing the longitude of that continent. In the former
aspect the name applied has nearly always been some form of
the name Sin, Chin, Sinæ, China. In the latter point of view
the region in question was known to the ancients as the land
of the Seres; the middle ages as the Empire of Cathay. The
name of China has been supposed, like many another word and
name connected with trade and geography of the far east, to
have come to us through the Malays, and to have been applied
by them to the great eastern monarchy from the style of the
dynasty of Thsin, which a little more than two centuries
before our era enjoyed a brief but very vigorous existence.
... There are reasons however for believing that the name of
China must have been bestowed at a much earlier date, for it
occurs in the laws of Manu, which assert the Chinas to have
been degenerate Kshatryas, and in the Mahabharat, compositions
many centuries older than the imperial dynasty of Thsin. ...
This name may have yet possibly been connected with the Thsin,
or some monarchy of like dynastic title; for that dynasty had
reigned locally in Shensi from the 9th century before our era;
and when, at a still earlier date, the empire was partitioned
into many small kingdoms, we find among them the dynasties of
the Tcin and the Ching. ... Some at least of the circumstances
which have been collected ... render it the less improbable that
the Sinim of the prophet Isaiah ... should be truly
interpreted as indicating the Chinese. The name of China in
this form was late in reaching the Greeks and Romans, and to
them it probably came through people of Arabian speech, as the
Arabs, being without the sound of 'ch,' made the China of the
Hindus and Malays into Sin, and perhaps sometimes into Thin.
Hence the Thin of the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean
Sea, who appears to be the first extant author to employ the
name in this form; hence also the Sinæ and Thinæ of Ptolemy.
.. . . If we now turn to the Seres we find this name mentioned
by classic authors much more frequently and at an earlier date
by at least a century. The name is familiar enough to the
Latin poets of the Augustan age, but always in a vague way.
... The name of Seres is probably from its earliest use in the
west identified with the name of the silkworm and its produce,
and this association continued until the name ceased entirely
to be used as a geographical expression. ... It was in the
days of the Mongols ... that China first became really known
to Europe, and that by a name which, though especially applied
to the northern provinces, also came to bear a more general
application, Cathay. This name, Khitai, is that by which China
is styled to this day by all, or nearly all, the nations which
know it from an inland point of view, including the Russians,
the Persians, and the nations of Turkestan; and yet it
originally belonged to a people who were not Chinese at all.
The Khitans were a people of Manchu race, who inhabited for
centuries a country to the north-east of China." During a
period between the 10th and 12th centuries, the Khitans
acquired supremacy over their neighbours and established an
empire which embraced Northern China and the adjoining regions
of Tartary. "It must have been during this period, ending with
the overthrow of the dynasty [called the Leao or Iron Dynasty]
in 1123, and whilst this northern monarchy was the face which
the Celestial Empire turned to Inner Asia, that the name of
Khitan, Khitat, or Khitaï, became indissolubly associated with
China."
H. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither: Preliminary
Essay.
CHINA:
The Origin of the People and their early History.
"The origin of the Chinese race is shrouded in some obscurity.
The first records we have of them represent them as a band of
immigrants settling in the north-eastern provinces of the
modern empire of China, and fight their way amongst the
aborigines, much as the Jews of old forced their way into
Canaan against the various tribes which they found in
possession of the land. It is probable that though they all
entered China by the same route, they separated into bands
almost on the threshold of the empire, one body, those who
have left us the records of their history in the ancient
Chinese books, apparently followed the course of the Yellow
River, and, turning south-ward with it from its northernmost
bend, settled themselves in the fertile districts of the
modern provinces of Shansi and Honan. But as we find also that
at about the same period a large settlement was made as far
south as Annam, of which there is no mention in the books of
the northern Chinese, we must assume that another body struck
directly southward through the southern provinces of China to
that country. The question then arises, where did these people
come from? and the answer which recent research [see BABYLONIA
PRIMITIVE] gives to this question is, from the south of the
Caspian Sea. ... In all probability, the outbreak in Susiana
of, possibly, some political disturbance, in about the 24th or
23rd century B. C., drove the Chinese from the land of their
adoption, and that they wandered eastward until they finally
settled in China and the countries south of it. ... It would
appear also that the Chinese came into China possessed of the
resources of Western Asian culture. They brought with them a
knowledge of writing and astronomy, as well as of the arts
which primarily minister to the wants and comfort of mankind.
The invention of these civilising influences is traditionally
attributed to the Emperor Hwang-te, who is said to have
reigned from B. C. 2697-2597. But the name of this sovereign
leads us to suppose that he never sat on the throne in China.
One of his names, we are told, was Nai, anciently Nak, and in
the Chinese paleographical collection he is described by a
character composed of a group of phonetics which read
Nak-kon-ti. The resemblance between this name and that of
Nak-hunte, who, according to the Susian texts, was the chief
of the gods, is sufficiently striking, and many of the
attributes belonging to him are such as to place him on an
equality with the Susian deity.
{417}
In exact accordance also with the system of Babylonian
chronology he established a cycle of twelve years, and fixed
the length of the year at 360 days composed of twelve months,
with an intercalary month to balance the surplus time. He
further, we are told, built a Ling tai, or observatory,
reminding us of the Babylonian Zigguratu, or house of
observation, 'from which to watch the movements of the
heavenly bodies.' The primitive Chinese, like the Babylonians,
recognised five planets besides the sun and moon, and, with
one exception, knew them by the same names. ... The various
phases of these planets were carefully watched, and portents
were derived from every real and imaginary change in their
relative positions and colours. A comparison between the
astrological tablets translated by Professor Sayce and the
astrological chapter (27th) in the She ke, the earliest of the
Dynastic Histories, shows a remarkable parallelism, not only
in the general style of the forecasts, but in particular
portents which are so contrary to Chinese prejudices, as a
nation, and the train of thought of the people that they would
be at once put down as of foreign origin, even if they were
not found in the Babylonian records. ... In the reign of Chwan
Hu (2513-2435 B. C.), we find according to the Chinese
records, that the year, as among the Chaldeans, began with the
third month of the solar year, and a comparison between the
ancient names of the months given in the Urh ya, the oldest
Chinese dictionary, with the Accadian equivalents, shows, in
some instances, an exact identity. ... These parallelisms,
together with a host of others which might be produced, all
point to the existence of an early relationship between
Chinese and Mesopotamian culture; and, armed with the
advantages thus possessed, the Chinese entered into the empire
over which they were ultimately to overspread themselves. But
they came among tribes who, though somewhat inferior to them
in general civilisation, were by no means destitute of
culture. ... Among such people, and others of a lower
civilisation, such as the Jungs of the west and the Teks, the
ancestors of the Tekke Turcomans, in the north, the Chinese
succeeded in establishing themselves. The Emperor Yaou
(2356-2255 B. C.) divided his kingdom into twelve portions,
presided over by as many Pastors, in exact imitation of the
duodenary feudal system of Susa with their twelve Pastor
Princes. To Yaou succeeded Shun, who carried on the work of
his predecessor of consolidating the Chinese power with energy
and success. In his reign the first mention is made of
religious worship. ... In Shun's reign occurred the great
flood which inundated most of the provinces of the existing
empire. The waters, we are told, rose to so great a height,
that the people had to betake themselves to the mountains to
escape death. The disaster arose, as many similar disasters,
though of a less magnitude, have since arisen, in consequence
of the Yellow River bursting its bounds, and the 'Great Yu'
was appointed to lead the waters back to their channel. With
unremitting energy he set about his task, and in nine years
succeeded in bringing the river under control. ... As a reward
for the services he had rendered to the empire, he was
invested with the principality of Hea, and after having
occupied the throne conjointly with Shun for some years, he
succeeded that sovereign on his death, in 2208 B. C. With Yu
began the dynasty of Hea, which gave place, in 1766 B. C., to
the Shang Dynasty. The last sovereign of the Hea line, Kieh
kwei, is said to have been a monster of iniquity, and to have
suffered the just punishment for his crimes at the hands of
T'ang, the prince of the State of Shang, who took his throne
from him. In like manner, 640 years later, Woo Wang, the
prince of Chow, overthrew Chow Sin, the last of the Shang
Dynasty, and established himself as the chief of the sovereign
state of the empire. By empire it must not be supposed that
the empire, as it exists at present, is meant. The China of
the Chow Dynasty lay between the 33rd and 38th parallels of
latitude, and the 106th and 119th of longitude only, and
extended over no more than portions of the provinces of Pih
chih-li, Shanse, Shense, Honan, Keang-se, and Shan-tung. This
territory was re-arranged by Woo Wang into the nine
principalities established by Yu. ... Woo is held up in
Chinese history as one of the model monarchs of antiquity. ...
Under the next ruler, K'ang (B. C. 1078-1053), the empire was
consolidated, and the feudal princes one and all acknowledged
their allegiance to the ruling house of Chow. ... From all
accounts there speedily occurred a marked degeneracy in the
characters of the Chow kings. ... Already a spirit of
lawlessness was spreading far and wide among the princes and
nobles, and wars and rumours of wars were creating misery and
unrest throughout the country. ... The hand of every man was
against his neighbour, and a constant state of internecine war
succeeded the peace and prosperity which had existed under the
rule of Woo-wang. ... As time went on and the disorder
increased, supernatural signs added their testimony to the
impending crisis. The brazen vessels upon which Yu had
engraved the nine divisions of the empire were observed to
shake and totter as though foreshadowing the approaching
change in the political position. Meanwhile Ts'in on the
northwest, Ts'oo on the south, and Tsin on the north, having
vanquished all the other states, engaged in the final struggle
for the mastery over the confederate principalities. The
ultimate victory rested with the state of Ts'in, and in 255 B.
C., Chaou-seang Wang became the acknowledged ruler over the
'black-haired' people. Only four years were given him to reign
supreme, and at the end of that time he was succeeded by his
son, Heaou-wan Wang, who died almost immediately on ascending
the throne. To him succeeded Chwang-seang Wang, who was
followed in 246 B. C. by Che Hwang-te, the first Emperor of
China. The abolition of feudalism, which was the first act of
Che Hwang-to raised much discontent among those to whom the
feudal system had brought power and emoluments, and the
countenance which had been given to the system by Confucius
and Mencius made it desirable--so thought the emperor--to
demolish once for all their testimony in favour of that
condition of affairs, which he had decreed should be among the
things of the past. With this object he ordered that the whole
existing literature, with the exception of books on medicine,
agriculture, and divination should be burned. The decree was
obeyed as faithfully as was possible in the case of so
sweeping an ordinance, and for many years a night of ignorance
rested on the country. The construction of one gigantic
work--the Great Wall of China--has made the name of this
monarch as famous as the destruction of the books has made it
infamous.
{418}
Finding the Heung-nu Tartars were making dangerous inroads
into the empire, he determined with characteristic
thoroughness to build a huge barrier which should protect the
northern frontier of the empire through all time. In 214 B. C.
the work was begun under his personal supervision, and though
every endeavor was made to hasten its completion he died (209)
leaving it unfinished. His death was the signal for an
outbreak among the dispossessed feudal princes, who, however,
after some years of disorder, were again reduced to the rank
of citizens by a successful leader, who adopted the title of
Kaou-te, and named his dynasty that of Han (206). From that
day to this, with occasional interregnums, the empire has been
ruled on the lines laid down by Che Hwang-te. Dynasty has
succeeded dynasty, but the political tradition has remained
unchanged, and though Mongols and Manchoos have at different
times wrested the throne from its legitimate heirs, they have
been engulfed in the homogeneous mass inhabiting the empire,
and instead of impressing their seal on the country have
become but the reflection of the vanquished. The dynasties
from the beginning of the earlier Han, founded, as stated
above, by Kaou-te, are as follows:
The earlier Han Dynasty B. C. 206-A. D. 25;
the late Han A. D. 25-220;
the Wei 220-280;
the western Tsin 265-317;
the eastern Tsin 317-420;
the Sung 420-479;
the Ts'e 479-502;
the Leang 502-557;
the Ch'in 557-589.
Simultaneously with these--
the northern Wei A. D. 386-534;
the western Wei 535-557;
the eastern Wei 534-550;
the northern Ts'e 550-577;
the northern Chow 557-589.
The Suy 589-618;
the T'ang 618-907;
the later Leang 907-923;
the later T'ang 923-936;
the later Tsin 936-947;
the later Han 947-951;
the later Chow 951-960,
the Sung 960-1127;
the southern Sung 1127-1280;
the Yuen 1280-1368;
the Ming 1368-1614;
the Ts'ing 1644.
Simultaneously with some of these--
the Leaou 907-1125;
the western Leaou 1125-1168;
the Kin 1115-1280.
R. K. Douglas, China, chapter 1.
ALSO IN
D.C. Boulger, History of China, volume 1-2.
CHINA:
The Religions of the People.
Confucianism.
Taouism.
Buddhism.
"The Chinese describe themselves as possessing three
religions, or more accurately, three sects, namely Joo keaou,
the sect of Scholars; Fuh keaou, the sect of Buddha; and Taou
keaou, the sect of Taou. Both as regards age and origin, the
sect of Scholars, or, as it is generally called, Confucianism,
represents pre-eminently the religion of China. It has its root
in the worship of Shang-te, a deity which is associated with
the earliest traditions of the Chinese race. Hwang-te (2697 B.
C.) erected a temple to his honour, and succeeding emperors
worshipped before his shrine. ... During the troublous times
which followed after the reign of the few first sovereigns of
the Chow Dynasty, the belief in a personal deity grew
indistinct and dim, until, when Confucius [born B. C. 551]
began his career, there appeared nothing strange in his
atheistic doctrines. He never in any way denied the existence
of Shang-te, but he ignored him. His concern was with man as a
member of society, and the object of his teaching was to lead
him into those paths of rectitude which might best contribute
to his own happiness, and to the well-being of that community
of which he formed part. Man, he held, was born good, and was
endowed with qualities which, when cultivated and improved by
watchfulness and self-restraint, might enable him to acquire
godlike wisdom and to become 'the equal of Heaven.' He divided
mankind into four classes, viz., those who are born with the
possession of knowledge; those who learn, and so readily get
possession of knowledge; those who are dull and stupid, and
yet succeed in learning; and, lastly, those who are dull and
stupid, and yet do not learn. To all these, except those of
the last class, the path to the climax reached by the 'Sage'
is open. Man has only to watch, listen to, understand, and
obey the moral sense implanted in him by Heaven, and the
highest perfection is within his reach. ... In this system
there is no place for a personal God. The impersonal Heaven,
according to Confucius, implants a pure nature in every being
at his birth, but, having done this, there is no further
supernatural interference with the thoughts and deeds of men.
It is in the power of each one to perfect his nature, and
there is no divine influence to restrain those who take the
downward course. Man has his destiny in his own hands, to make
or to mar. Neither had Confucius any inducement to offer to
encourage men in the practice of virtue, except virtue's self.
He was a matter-of-fact, unimaginative man, who was quite
content to occupy himself with the study of his fellow-men,
and was disinclined to grope into the future or to peer
upwards. No wonder that his system, as he enunciated it,
proved a failure. Eagerly he sought in the execution of his
official duties to effect the regeneration of the empire, but
beyond the circle of his personal disciples he found few
followers, and as soon as princes and statesmen had satisfied
their curiosity about him they turned their backs on his
precepts and would [have] none of his reproofs. Succeeding
ages, recognising the loftiness of his aims, eliminated all
that was impracticable and unreal in his system, and held fast
to that part of it that was true and good. They were content
to accept the logic of events, and to throw overboard the
ideal 'sage,' and to ignore the supposed potency of his
influence; but they clung to the doctrines of filial piety,
brotherly love, and virtuous living. It was admiration for the
emphasis which he laid on these and other virtues which has
drawn so many millions of men unto him; which has made his
tomb at Keo-foo heen to be the Mecca of Confucianism, and has
adorned every city of the empire with temples built in his
honour. ... Concurrently with the lapse of pure Confucianism,
and the adoption of those principles which find their earliest
expression in the pre-Confucian classics of China, there is
observable a return to the worship of Shang-te. The most
magnificent temple in the empire is the Temple of Heaven at
Peking, where the highest object of Chinese worship is adored
with the purest rites. ... What is popularly known in Europe
as Confucianism is, therefore, Confucianism with the
distinctive opinions of Confucius omitted. ... But this
worship of Shang-te is confined only to the emperor. The
people have no lot or heritage in the sacred acts of worship
at the Altar of Heaven. ... Side by side with the revival of
the Joo keaou, under the influence of Confucius, grew up a
system of a totally different nature, and which, when divested
of its esoteric doctrines, and reduced by the
practically-minded Chinamen to a code of morals, was destined
in future ages to become affiliated with the teachings of the Sage.
{419}
This was Taouism, which was founded by Laou-tsze, who was a
contemporary of Confucius. An air of mystery hangs over the
history of Laou-tsze. Of his parentage we know nothing, and
the historians, in their anxiety to conceal their ignorance of
his earlier years, shelter themselves behind the legend that
he was born an old man. ... The primary meaning of Taou is
'The way,' 'The path,' but in Laou-tsze's philosophy it was
more than the way, it was the way-goer as well. It was an
eternal road; along it all beings and things walked; it was
everything and nothing, and the cause and effect of all. All
things originated from Taou, conformed to Taou, and to Taou at
last returned. ... 'If, then, we had to express the meaning of
Taou, we should describe it as the Absolute; the totality of
Being and Things; the phenomenal world and its order; and the
ethical nature of the good man, 'and the principle of his
action.' It was absorption into this 'Mother of all things'
that Laou-tsze aimed at. And this end was to be attained to by
self-emptiness, and by giving free scope to the uncontaminated
nature which, like Confucius, he taught was given by Heaven to
all men. ... But these subtleties, like the more abstruse
speculations of Confucius, were suited only to the taste of
the schools. To the common people they were foolishness, and,
before long, the philosophical doctrine of Laou-tsze of the
identity of existence and non-existence, assumed in their eyes
a warrant for the old Epicurean motto, 'Let us eat and drink,
for to-morrow we die.' The pleasures of sense were substituted
for the delights of virtue, and the next step was to desire
prolongation of the time when those pleasures could be
enjoyed. Legend said that Laou-tsze had secured to himself
immunity from death by drinking the elixir of immortality, and
to enjoy the same 'privilege became the all-absorbing object
of his followers. The demand for elixirs and charms produced a
supply, and Taouism quickly degenerated into a system of
magic. ... The teachings of Laou-tsze having familiarised the
Chinese mind with philosophical doctrines, which, whatever
were their direct source, bore a marked resemblance to the
musings of Indian sages, served to prepare the way for the
introduction of Buddhism. The exact date at which the Chinese
first became acquainted with the doctrines of Buddha was,
according to an author quoted in K'ang-he's Imperial
Encyclopædia, the thirtieth year of the reign of She Hwang-te,
i. e., B. C. 216. The story this writer tells of the
difficulties which the first missionaries encountered is
curious, and singularly suggestive of the narrative of St.
Peter's imprisonment."
R. K. Douglas, China, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
R. K. Douglas, Confucianism and Taouism.
"Buddhism ... penetrated to China along the fixed route from
India to that country, round the north-west corner of the
Himalayas and across Eastern Turkestan. Already in the 2nd
year B. C., an embassy, perhaps sent by Huvishka [who reigned
in Kabul and Kashmere] took Buddhist books to the then Emperor
of China, A-ili; and the Emperor Ming-ti, 62 A. D., guided by
a dream, is said to have sent to Tartary and Central India and
brought Buddhist books to China. From this time Buddhism
rapidly spread there. ... In the fourth century Buddhism
became the state religion."
T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhism, chapter 9.
ALSO IN
J. Legge, The Religions of China.
J. Edkins, Religion in China.
J. Edkins, Chinese Buddhism.
S. Beals, Buddhism in China.
S. Johnson, Oriental Religions: China.
CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234.
Conquest by Jingis Khan and his son.
"The conquest of China was commenced by Chinghiz [or Jingis
Khan], although it was not completed for several generations.
Already in 1205 he had invaded Tangut, a kingdom occupying the
extreme northwest of China, and extending beyond Chinese
limits in the same direction, held by a dynasty of Tibetan
race, which was or had been a vassal to the Kin. This invasion
was repeated in succeeding years; and in 1211 his attacks
extended to the Empire of the Kin itself. In 1214 he ravaged
their provinces to the Yellow River, and in the following year
took Chungtu or Peking. In 1219 he turned his arms against
Western Asia; ... but a lieutenant whom he had left behind him
in the East continued to prosecute the subjection of Northern
China. Chinghiz himself on his return from his western
conquests renewed his attack on Tangut, and died on that
enterprise, 18th August. Okkodai, the son and successor of
Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his Empire all
the provinces north of the Great Kiang. The Southern provinces
remained for the present subject to the Chinese dynasty of the
Sung, reigning now at Kingssé or Hangcheu. This kingdom was
known to the Tartars as Nangkiass, and also by the
quasi-Chinese title of Mangi or Manzi, made so famous by Marco
Polo and the travellers of the following age."
H. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither.
Preliminary Essay, section 91-92.
See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
The Empire of Kublai Khan.
Kublai, or Khubilai Khan, one of the grandsons of Jingis Khan,
who reigned as the Great Khan or Supreme lord of the Mongols
from 1259 until 1294, "was the sovereign of the largest empire
that was ever controlled by one man. China, Corea, Thibet,
Tung-King, Cochin China, a great portion of India beyond the
Ganges, the Turkish and Siberian realms from the Eastern Sea
to the Dnieper, obeyed his commands; and although the chief of
the Hordes of Jagatai and Ogatai refused to acknowledge him,
the Ilkhans of Persia ... were his feudatories. ... The
Supreme Khan had immediate authority only in Mongolia and
China. ... The capital of the Khakan, after the accession of
Khubilai, was a new city he built close to the ancient
metropolis of the Liao and Kin dynasties."
H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1,
pages 216-283.
"Khan-Bálig (Mong., 'The Khan's city'), the Cambalu of Marco,
Peking ... was captured by Chinghiz in 1215, and in 1264
Kublai made it his chief residence. In 1267 he built a new
city, three 'li' to the north-east of the old one, to which
was given the name of Ta-tu or 'Great Court,' called by the
Mongols Daïdu, the Taydo of Odoric and Taidu of Polo, who
gives a description of its dimensions, the number of its
gates, etc., similar to that in the text. The Chinese accounts
give only eleven gates. This city was abandoned as a royal
residence on the expulsion of the Mongol dynasty in 1368, but
re-occupied in 1421 by the third Ming Emperor, who built the
walls as they now exist, reducing their extent and the number
of the gates to nine. This is what is commonly called the
'Tartar city' of the present day (called also by the Chinese
Lau-Chhing or 'Old Town'), which therefore represents the
Taydo of Odoric."
H. Yule,
Cathay and the Way Thither, volume 1, page 127, footnote.
ALSO IN
Marco Polo, Travels, with Notes by Sir H. Yule, book 2.
See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294,
and POLO, MARCO.
{420}
CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
Dissolution of the Empire of Kublai Khan.
The Ming dynasty and its fall.
The enthronement of the present Manchu Tartar Dynasty, of the
Tsings or Ch'ings.
The appearance of the Portuguese and the Jesuit Missionaries.
"The immediate successors of Kublai, brought up in the
luxuries of the imperial palace, the most gorgeous at that
time in the world, relied upon the prestige with which the
glory of the late emperor invested them, and never dreamed
that change could touch a dominion so vast and so solid. Some
devoted themselves to elegant literature and the improvement
of the people; later princes to the mysteries of Buddhism,
which became, in some degree, the state religion; and as the
cycle went round, the dregs of the dynasty abandoned
themselves, as usual, to priests, women, and eunuchs. ... The
distant provinces threw off their subjection; robbers ravaged
the land, and pirates the sea; a minority and a famine came at
the same moment; and in less than ninety years after its
commencement, the fall of the dynasty was only illumined by
some few flashes of dying heroism, and every armed Tartar, who
could obtain a horse to aid his flight, spurred back to his
native deserts. Some of them, of the royal race, turning to
the west, took refuge with the Manchows, and in process of
time, marrying with the families of the chiefs, intermingled
the blood of the two great tribes. The proximate cause of this
catastrophe was a Chinese of low birth, who, in the midst of
the troubles of the time, found means to raise himself by his
genius from a servile station to the leadership of a body of
the malcontents, and thence to step into the imperial throne.
The new dynasty [the Ming] began their reign with great
brilliance. The emperor carried the Tartar war into their own
country, and at home made unrelenting war upon the abuses of
his palace. He committed the mistake, however, of granting
separate principalities to the members of his house, which in
the next reign caused a civil war, and the usurpation of the
throne by an uncle of the then emperor. The usurper found it
necessary to transfer the capital to Peking, as a post of
defence against the eastern Tartars, who now made their
appearance again on this eventful stage. He was successful,
however, in his wars in the desert, and he added Tonquin and
Cochin China to the Chinese dominions. After him the fortunes
of the dynasty began to wane. The government became weaker,
the Tartars stronger, some princes attached themselves to
literature, some to Buddhism or Taoism: Cochin China revolted,
and was lost to the empire, Japan ravaged the coasts with her
privateers; famine came to add to the horrors of misrule."
Leitch Ritchie, History of the Oriental Nations,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2).
"From without, the Mings were constantly harassed by the
encroachments of the Tartars; from within, the ceaseless
intriguing of the eunuchs (resulting in one case in the
temporary deposition of an Emperor) was a fertile cause of
trouble. Towards the close of the 16th century the Portuguese
appeared upon the scene, and from their 'concession' at Macao,
some time the residence of Camoens, opened commercial
relations between China and the West. They brought the
Chinese, among other things, opium, which had previously been
imported overland from India. They possibly taught them how to
make gunpowder, to the invention of which the Chinese do not
seem, upon striking a balance of evidence, to possess an
independent claim. About the same time [1580] Rome contributed
the first instalment of those wonderful Jesuit fathers, whose
names may truly be said to have filled the empire 'with sounds
that echo still,' the memory of their scientific labours and
the benefits they thus conferred upon China having long
survived the wreck and discredit of the faith to which they
devoted their lives. And at this distance of time it does not
appear to be a wild statement to assert that had the Jesuits,
the Franciscans, and the Dominicans, been able to resist
quarrelling among themselves, and had they rather united to
persuade Papal infallibility to permit the incorporation of
ancestor worship with the rites and ceremonies of the Romish
church--China would at this moment be a Catholic country, and
Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism would long since have
receded into the past. Of all these Jesuit missionaries, the
name of Matteo Ricci [who died in 1610] stands by common
consent first upon the long list. ... The overthrow of the
Mings [A. D. 1644], was brought about by a combination of
events, of the utmost importance to those who would understand
the present position of the Tartars as rulers of China. A
sudden rebellion had resulted in the capture of Peking by the
insurgents, and in the suicide of the Emperor who was fated to
be the last of his line. The Imperial Commander-in-chief, Wu
San-kuei, at that time away on the frontiers of Manchuria,
engaged in resisting the incursions of the Manchu Tartars, now
for a long time in a state of ferment, immediately hurried
back to the capital, but was totally defeated by the insurgent
leader, and once more made his way, this time as a fugitive
and a suppliant, towards the Tartar camp. Here he obtained
promises of assistance, chiefly on condition that he would
shave his head and grow a tail in accordance with Manchu
custom, and again set off with his new auxiliaries towards
Peking, being reinforced on the way by a body of Mongol
volunteers. As things turned out Wu San-kuei arrived at Peking
in advance of these allies, and actually succeeded, with the
remnant of his own scattered forces, in routing the troops of
the rebel leader before the Tartars and the Mongols came up.
He then started in pursuit of the flying foe. Meanwhile the
Tartar contingent arrived; and on entering the capital, the
young Manchu prince in command was invited by the people of
Peking to ascend the vacant throne. So that by the time Wu
San-kuei re-appeared he found a new dynasty [the Ch'ing or
Tsing dynasty of the present day] already established, and his
late Manchu ally at the head of affairs. His first intention
had doubtless been to continue the Ming line of Emperors; but
he seems to have readily fallen in with the arrangement
already made, and to have tendered his formal allegiance on
the four following conditions:
{421}
(1.) That no Chinese woman should be taken into the Imperial
seraglio.
(2.) That the first place at the great triennial examination
for the highest literary degrees should never be given to a
Tartar.
(3.) That the people should adopt the national costume of the
Tartars in their everyday life; but that they should be
allowed to bury their corpses in the dress of the late
dynasty.
(4.) That this condition of costume should not apply to the
women of China, who were not to be compelled either to wear
the hair in a tail before marriage (as the Tartar girls do) or
to abandon the custom of compressing' their feet.
The great Ming dynasty was now at an end, though not destined
wholly to pass away. A large part of it may be said to remain
in the literary monuments which were executed during its three
centuries of existence. The dress of the period survives upon
the modern Chinese stage; and when occasionally the present
alien yoke is found to gall, seditious whispers of
'restoration' are not altogether unheard. ... The age of the
Ch'ings is the age in which we live; but it is not so familiar
to some persons as it ought to be, that a Tartar, and not a
Chinese sovereign, is now seated upon the throne of China. For
some time after the accession of the first Manchu Emperor
there was considerable friction between the two races, due,
among other natural causes, to the enforced adoption of the
peculiar coiffure in vogue among the Manchus--i. e., the tail,
or plaited queue of hair, which now hangs down every
Chinaman's back. This fashion was for a long time vigorously
resisted by the inhabitants of southern China, though now
regarded by all alike as one of the most sacred
characteristics of the 'black-haired people.' ... The
subjugation of the empire by the Manchus was followed by a
military occupation of the country, which has survived the
original necessity, and is part of the system of government at
the present day. Garrisons of Tartar troops were stationed at
various important centres of population. ... Those Tartar
garrisons still occupy the same positions; and the descendants
of the first battalions, with occasional reinforcements from
Peking, live side by side and in perfect harmony with the
strictly Chinese populations. These Bannermen, as they are
called, may be known by their square, heavy faces, which
contrast strongly with the sharper and more astute
physiognomies of the Chinese. They speak the dialect of
Peking, now recognised as the official language par
excellence. They do not use their family or surnames--which
belong rather to the clan than to the individual--but in order
to conform to the requirements of Chinese life, the personal
name is substituted. Their women do not compress their feet,
and the female coiffure and dress are wholly Tartar in
character. Intermarriage between the two races is not
considered desirable, though instances are not unknown. In
other respects, it is the old story of 'vida victrix;' the
conquering Tartars have been themselves conquered by the
people over whom they set themselves to rule. They have
adopted the language, written and colloquial, of China. ...
Manchu, the language of the conquerors, is still kept alive at
the Court of Peking. By a State fiction, it is supposed to be
the language of the sovereign. ... Eight emperors of this line
have already occupied the throne, and 'become guests on high;'
the ninth is yet [in 1882] a boy less than ten years of age.
Of these eight, the second in every way fills the largest
space in Chinese history. K'ang Hsi (or Kang Hi) reigned for
sixty-one years. ... Under the third Manchu Emperor, Yung
Cheng [A. D. 1723-1736], began that violent persecution of the
Catholics which has continued almost to the present day. The
various sects--Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans--had been
unable to agree about the Chinese equivalent for God, and the
matter had been finally referred to the Pope. Another
difficulty had arisen as to the toleration of ancestral
worship by Chinese converts professing the Catholic faith. ...
As the Pope refused to permit the embodiment of this ancient
custom with the ceremonies of the Catholic church, the new
religion ceased to advance, and by-and-by fell into
disrepute."
H. A. Giles, Historic China, chapter 5-6.
ALSO IN
S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom,
chapter 17, and 19-20 (volume 2).
C. Gutzlaff, Sketch of Chinese History,
volume 1, chapter 16, volume 2.
J. Ross, The Manchus.
Abbé Hue, Christianity in China, volume 2-3.
CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
The Opium War with England.
Treaty of Nanking.
Opening of the Five Ports.
"The first Chinese war [of England] was in one sense directly
attributable to the altered position of the East India Company
after 1833. [See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.] Up to that year
trade between England and China had been conducted in both
countries on principles of strict monopoly. The Chinese trade
was secured to the East India Company, and the English trade
was confined to a company of merchants specially nominated for
the purpose by the Emperor. The change of thought which
produced the destruction of monopolies in England did not
penetrate to the conservative atmosphere of the Celestial
Empire, and, while the trade in one country was thrown open to
everyone, trade in the other was still exclusively confined to
the merchants nominated by the Chinese Government. These
merchants, Hong merchants as they were called, traded
separately, but were mutually liable for the dues to the
Chinese Government and for their debts to the foreigners. Such
conditions neither promoted the growth of trade nor the
solvency of the traders; and, out of the thirteen Hong
merchants in 1837, three or four were avowedly insolvent.
(State Papers, volume 27, page 1310.) Such were the general
conditions on which the trade was conducted. The most
important article of trade was opium. The importation of opium
into China had, indeed, been illegal since 1796. But the
Chinese Government had made no stringent efforts to prohibit
the trade, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had
declared that it was inadvisable to abandon an important
source of revenue to the East India Company. (State Papers, volume
29, page 1020.) The opium trade consequently throve, and grew
from 4,100 chests in 1796 to 30,000 chests in 1837, and the
Chinese connived at or ignored the growing trade. (Ibid., p.
1019). ... In 1837 the Chinese Government adopted a fresh policy.
{422}
It decided on rigourously stopping the trade at which it had
previously tacitly connived. ... Whether the Chinese
Government was really shocked at the growing use of the drug
and the consequences of its use, or whether it was alarmed at
a drain of silver from China which disturbed what the
political arithmeticians of England a hundred years before
would have called the balance of trade, it undoubtedly
determined to check the traffic by every means at its
disposal. With this object it strengthened its force on the
coast and sent Lin, a man of great energy, to Canton [March,
1839] with supreme authority. (State Papers, volume 29, page
934, and Autobiography of Sir H. Taylor, volume 1, appendix,
page 343.) Before Lin's arrival cargoes of opium had been
seized by the Custom House authorities. On his arrival Lin
required both the Hong merchants and the Chinese merchants to
deliver up all the opium in their possession in order that it
might be destroyed. (State Papers, volume 29, page 936.) The
interests of England in China were at that time entrusted to
Charles Elliot. ... But Elliot occupied a very difficult
position in China. The Chinese placed on their communications
to him the Chinese word 'Yu,' and wished him to place on his
despatches to them the Chinese word 'Pin.' But Yu signifies a
command, and Pin a humble address, and a British
Plenipotentiary could not receive commands from, or humble
himself before, Chinese officials. (State Papers, volume 29,
pages 881, 886, 888.) And hence the communications between him
and the Chinese Government were unable to follow a direct
course, but were frequently or usually sent through the Hong
merchants. Such was the state of things in China when Lin,
arriving in Canton, insisted on the surrender and destruction
of all the opium there. Elliot was at Macao. He at once
decided on returning to the post of difficulty and danger;
and, though Canton was blockaded by Chinese forces and its
river guarded by Chinese batteries, he made his way up in a
boat of H. M. S. 'Larne,' and threw himself among his
imprisoned countrymen. After his arrival he took the
responsibility of demanding the surrender into his own hands,
for the service of his Government, of all the British opium in
China, and he surrendered the opium which he thus obtained,
amounting to 20,283 chests, to the Chinese authorities, by
whom it was destroyed. (Ibid., pages 945, 967.) The imminent
danger to the lives and properties of a large number of
British subjects was undoubtedly removed by Elliot's action.
Though some difficulty arose in connection with the surrender,
Lin undertook gradually to relax the stringency of the
measures which he had adopted (ibid., page 977), and Elliot
hoped that his own zealous efforts to carry out the
arrangement which he had made would lead to the raising of the
blockade. He was, however, soon undeceived. On the 4th of
April Lin required him, in conjunction with the merchants, to
enter into a bond under which all vessels hereafter engaged in
the opium traffic would have been confiscated to the Chinese
Government, and all persons connected with the trade would
'suffer death at the hands of the Celestial Court.' (Ibid.,
page 989.) This bond Elliot steadily refused to sign (ibid.,
page 992); and feeling that 'all sense of security was broken
to pieces' (ibid., page 978), he ordered all British subjects
to leave Canton (ibid., page 1004), he himself withdrew to the
Portuguese settlement at Macao (ibid., page 1007), and he
wrote to Auckland, the Governor-General of India, for armed
assistance. (Ibid., page 1009.) These grave events naturally
created profound anxiety. A Select Committee of the House of
Commons had formally declined to interfere with the trade. The
opium monopoly at that time was worth some £1,000,000 or
£1,500,000 a year to British India (ibid., page 1020); and
India, engaged in war with Afghanistan and already involved in
a serious deficit, could not afford to part with so large an
amount of its revenue (ibid., page 1020). Nine-tenths of the
British merchants in China were engaged in the illegal trade
(ibid., page 1030), while Elliot, in enforcing the surrender
of the opium, had given the merchants bonds on the British
Government for its value, and the 20,000 chests surrendered
were supposed to be worth from 600 to 1,200 dollars a chest
(ibid., page 987), or say from £2,400,000 to £4,800,000. ...
As the summer advanced, moreover, a fresh outrage increased
the intensity of the crisis. On the 7th July some British
seamen landed near Hong Kong, and engaged in a serious riot. A
native was unfortunately killed on the occasion, and though
Elliot, at his own risk, gave the relations of the victim a
large pecuniary compensation, and placed the men engaged in
the riot on their trial, Lin was not satisfied. He moved down
to the coast, cut off the supplies of British subjects, and
threatened to stop the supplies to Macao if the Portuguese
continued to assist the British. (Ibid., pages 1037-1039.) The
British were in consequence forced to leave Macao; and about the
same time a small schooner, the 'Black Joke,' was attacked by
the Chinese, and a British subject on board of her seriously
wounded. Soon afterwards, however, the arrival of a ship of
war, the 'Volage,' in Chinese waters enabled Elliot to assume
a bolder front. He returned to Macao; he even attempted to
procure supplies from the mainland. But, though he succeeded
in purchasing food, 'the Mandarin runners approached and
obliged the natives to take back their provisions,' and
Elliot, exasperated at their conduct, fired on some war junks
of the Chinese, which returned the fire. A week afterwards
Elliot declared the port and river of Canton to be in a state
of blockade. (Ibid., page 1066.) The commencement of the
blockade, however, did not lead to immediate war. On the
contrary, the Chinese showed considerable desire to avert
hostilities. They insisted, indeed, that some British sailor
must be surrendered to them to suffer for the death of the
Chinaman who had fallen in the riot of Hong Kong. But they
showed so much anxiety to conclude an arrangement on this
point that they endeavoured to induce Elliot to declare that a
sailor who was accidentally drowned in Chinese waters, and whose
body they had found, was the actual murderer. (State Papers,
volume 30, page 27.) And in the meanwhile the trade which Lin
had intended to destroy went on at least as actively as ever.
Lin's proceedings had, indeed, the effect of stimulating it to
an unprecedented degree. The destruction of vast stores of
opium led to a rise in the price of opium in China. The rise
in price produced the natural consequence of an increased
speculation; and, though British shipping was excluded from
Chinese waters, and the contents of British vessels had to be
transferred to American bottoms for conveyance into Chinese
ports, British trade had never been so large or so
advantageous as in the period which succeeded Lin's arbitrary
proceedings.
{423}
Elliot was, of course, unable to prevent war either by the
surrender of a British sailor to the Chinese, or by even
assuming that a drowned man was the murderer; and war in
consequence became daily more probable. In January, 1840,
operations actually commenced. Elliot was instructed to make
an armed demonstration on the northern coasts of China, to
take possession of some island on the coast, and to obtain
reparation and indemnity, if possible by a mere display of
force, but otherwise to proceed with the squadron and thence
send an ultimatum to Pekin. In accordance with these orders
the Island of Chusan was occupied in July, and the fleet was
sent to the mouth of the Peiho with orders to transmit a
letter to Pekin. But the sea off the Peiho is shallow, the
ships could not approach the coasts, and the Chinese naturally
refused to yield to an empty demonstration. The expedition was
forced to return to Chusan, where it found that the troops
whom they had left behind were smitten by disease, that one
out of every four men were dead, and that more than one-half
of the survivors were invalided. Thus, throughout 1840, the
Chinese war was only attended with disaster and distress.
Things commenced a little more prosperously in 1841 by the
capture of the Chinese position at the mouth of the Canton
river. Elliot, after this success, was even able to conclude a
preliminary treaty with the Chinese authorities. But this
treaty did not prove satisfactory either to the British
Government or to the Chinese. The British saw with dismay that
the treaty made no mention of the trade in opium which had
been the ostensible cause of the war. The Whig Government
accordingly decided on superseding Elliot. He was recalled and
replaced by Henry Pottinger. Before news of his recall reached
him, however, the treaty which had led to his supersession had
been disavowed by the Chinese authorities, and Elliot had
commenced a fresh attack on the Chinese force which guarded
the road to Canton. British sailors and British troops, under
the command of Bremer and Gough, won a victory which placed
Canton at their mercy. But Elliot, shrinking from exposing a
great town to the horrors of an assault, stopped the advance
of the troops and admitted the city to a ransom of £1,250,000.
(Sir H. Taylor's Autobiography, volume 1, appendix, pages
353-363.) His moderation was naturally unacceptable to the
troops and not entirely approved by the British Government. It
constituted, however, Elliot's last action as agent in China. The
subsequent operations were conducted under Pottinger's
advice."
S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, Note, volume 5,
pages 287-291.
"Sir Henry Pottinger, who arrived as Plenipotentiary on the
10th of August, took the chief direction of the affairs. ...
To the end of 1841 there were various successes achieved by
the land and naval forces, which gave the British possession
of many large fortified towns, amongst which were Amoy,
Ting-hai, Chin-hai, Ning-po, and Shang-hai. The Chinese were
nevertheless persevering in their resistance, and in most
cases evinced a bravery which showed how mistaken were the
views which regarded the subjection of this extraordinary
people as an easy task. ... The British fleet on the 13th of
June [1842] entered the great river Kiang, and on the 6th of
July advanced up the river, and cut off its communication with
the Grand Canal, by which Nanking, the ancient capital of
China, was supplied with grain. The point where the river
intersects the canal is the city of Chin-Kiang-foo. ... On the
morning of the 21st the city was stormed by the British, in
three brigades. The resistance of the Tartar troops was most
desperate. Our troops fought under a burning sun, whose
overpowering heat caused some to fall dead. The obstinate
defence of the place prevented its being taken till six
o'clock in the evening. When the streets were entered, the
houses were found almost deserted. They were filled with
ghastly corpses, many of the Tartar soldiers having destroyed
their families and then committed suicide. The city, from the
number of the dead, had become uninhabitable."
C. Knight, Popular History of England., volume 8, chapter 25.
"The destruction of life was appalling. ... Every Manchu
preferred resistance, death, suicide, or flight, to surrender.
Out of a Manchu population of 4,000, it was estimated that not
more than 500 survived, the greater part having perished by
their own hands. ... Within twenty-four hours after the troops
landed, the city and suburbs of Chinkiang were a mass of ruin
and destruction. ... The total loss of the English was 37
killed and 131 wounded. ... Some of the large ships were towed
up to Nanking, and the whole fleet reached it August 9th, at
which time preparations had been made for the assault. ...
Everything was ready for the assault by daylight of August
15th;" but on the night of the 14th the Chinese made overtures
for the negotiation of peace, and the important Treaty of
Nanking was soon afterwards concluded. Its terms were as
follows: "1. Lasting peace between the two nations. 2. The
ports of Canton, Amoy, Fuhchau, Ningpo, and Shanghai [known
afterwards as the Treaty Ports] to be opened to British trade
and residence, and trade conducted according to a
well-understood tariff. 3. 'It being obviously necessary and
desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat
they may careen and refit their ships when required,' the
island of Hongkong to be ceded to her Majesty. 4. Six millions
of dollars to be paid as the value of the opium which was
delivered up 'as a ransom for the lives of H. B. M.
Superintendent and subjects,' in March, 1839. 5. Three
millions of dollars to be paid for the debts due to British
merchants. 6. Twelve millions to be paid for the expenses
incurred in the expedition sent out 'to obtain redress for the
violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese high
authorities.' 7. The entire amount of $21,000,000 to be paid
before December 31, 1845. 8. All prisoners of war to be
immediately released by the Chinese. 9. The Emperor to grant
full and entire amnesty to those of his subjects who had aided
the British." Articles 10 to 13 related to the tariff of
export and import dues that should be levied at the open
ports; to future terms of official correspondence, etc. The
Treaty was signed by the Commissioners on the 29th of August,
1842, and the Emperor's ratification was received September
15th.
S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 22-23.
ALSO IN
D. C. Boulger, History of China, volume 3, chapter 5-7.
E. H. Parker, Chinese Account of the Opium War.
{424}
CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.
The Taiping Rebellion.
"The phrase 'Taiping Rebellion is wholly of foreign
manufacture; at Peking and everywhere among those loyal to the
government the insurgents were styled 'Chang-mao tseh,' or
'Long-haired rebels,' while on their side, by a whimsical
resemblance to English slang, the imperialists were dubbed
'imps.' When the chiefs assumed to be aiming at independence
in 1850, in order to identify their followers with their cause
they took the term 'Ping Chao,' or 'Peace Dynasty,' as the
style of their sway, to distinguish it from the 'Tsing Chao,'
or 'Pure Dynasty' of the Manchus. Each of them prefixed the
adjective 'Ta' (or 'Tai,' in Cantonese), 'Great,' as is the
Chinese custom with regard to dynasties and nations; thus the
name Tai-ping became known to foreigners."
S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 24 (volume 2).
"This remarkable movement, which at one time excited much
interest in Western lands, originated with a man named Hung
Sew-tseuen [or Hung Siu-tseuen], son of a humble peasant
residing in a village near Canton. On the occasion of one of
his visits to the provincial city, probably in the year 1833,
he appears to have seen a foreign Protestant missionary
addressing the populace in the streets, assisted by a native
interpreter. Either then or on the following day he received
from some tract-distributor a book entitled 'Good Words for
Exhorting the Age,' which consisted of essays and sermons by
Leang A-fah, a well-known convert and evangelist. Taking the
volume home with him, he looked it over with some interest,
but carelessly laid it aside in his book-case. A few years
afterward he attended for the second time the competitive
literary examination with high hopes of honor and distinction,
having already passed with much credit the lower examination
in the district city. His ambitious venture, however, met with
severe disappointment, and he returned to his friends sick in
mind and body. During this state of mental depression and
physical infirmity, which continued for some forty days, he
had certain strange visions, in which he received commands
from heaven to destroy the idols. These fancied revelations
seem to have produced a deep impression on his mind, and led
to a certain gravity of demeanor after his recovery and return
to his quiet occupation as a student and village schoolmaster.
When the English war broke out, and foreigners swept up Canton
River with their wonderful fire-ships, ... it is not
surprising that Hung should have had his attention again
attracted to the Christian publication which had lain so long
neglected in his library. ... The writings of Leang A-fah
contained chapters from the Old and New Testament Scriptures,
which he found to correspond in a striking manner with the
preternatural sights and voices of that memorable period in
his history [during his sickness, six years before]; and this
strange coincidence convinced him of their truth, and of his
being divinely appointed to restore the world, that is China,
to the worship of the true God. Hung Sew-tseuen accepted his
mission and began the work of propagating the faith he had
espoused. Among his first converts was one Fung Yun-san, who
became a most ardent missionary and disinterested preacher.
These two leaders of the movement traveled far and near
through the country, teaching the people of all classes and
forming a society of God-worshippers. All the converts
renounced idolatry and gave up the worship of Confucius. Hung,
at this time apparently a sincere and earnest seeker after
truth, went to Canton and placed himself under the
instructions of the Reverend Mr. Roberts, an American missionary,
who for some cause fearing that his novitiate might be
inspired by mercenary motives, denied him the rite of baptism.
But, without being offended at this cold and suspicious
treatment, he went home and taught his converts how to baptize
themselves. The God-worshippers rapidly increased in numbers,
and were known and feared as zealous iconoclasts. ... For a
year after Hung Sew-tseuen had rejoined the God-worshippers
that society retained its exclusively religious nature, but in
the autumn of 1850 it was brought into direct collision with
the civil magistrates, when the movement assumed a political
character of the highest aims." It was soon a movement of
declared rebellion, and allied with a rebel army of bandits
and pirates which had taken arms against the government in
south-eastern China.
L. N. Wheeler, The Foreigner in China, chapter 13.
"The Hakka schoolmaster proclaimed his 'mission' in 1850. A
vast horde gathered to him. He nominated five 'Wangs' or
soldier sub-kings from out of his clan, and commenced his
northward movement from Woosewen in January, 1851. Through the
rich prosperous provinces his desultory march, interspersed
with frequent halts, spread destruction and desolation. The
peaceful fled shudderingly before this wave of fierce,
stalwart ruffianhood, with its tatterdemalian tawdriness, its
flaunting banners, its rusty naked weapons. Everywhere it
gathered in the local scoundrelism. The pirates came from the
coast; the robbers from the interior mountains rallied to an
enterprise that promised so well for their trade. In the
perturbed state of the Chinese population the horde grew like
an avalanche as it rolled along. The Heavenly King [as Hung
now styled himself] met with no opposition to speak of, and in
1853 his promenade ended under the shadow of the Porcelain
Tower, in the city of Nanking, the second metropolis of the
Chinese Empire, where, till the rebellion and his life ended
simultaneously, he lived a life of licentiousness, darkened
further by the grossest cruelties. The rebellion had lasted
nearly ten years when the fates brought it into collision with
the armed civilization of the West. The Imperialist forces had
made sluggishly some head against it. Nanking had been
invested after a fashion for years on end. 'The prospects of
the Tai-pings,' says Commander Brine, 'in the early spring of
1860, had become very gloomy.' The Imperialist generals had
hemmed Tai-pingdom within certain limits in the lower valley
of the Yantsze, and the movement languished further 'from its
destructive and exhausting nature, which for continued
vitality constantly required new districts of country to
exhaust and destroy.' But in 1859 China and the West came into
collision. ... The rebellion had opportunity to recover lost
ground. For the sixth time the 'Faithful King' relieved
Nanking. The Imperialist generals fell back, and then the
Tai-pings took the offensive, and as the result of sundry
victories, the rebellion regained an active and flourishing
condition. ... Shanghai, one of the treaty ports, was
threatened."
A. Forbes, Chinese Gordon, chapter 2.
{425}
"Europe ... has known evil days under the hands of fierce
conquerors, plundering and destroying in religion's name; but
its annals may be ransacked in vain, without finding any
parallel to the miseries endured in those provinces of China
over which 'The Heavenly King,' the Tai-ping prophet, extended
his fell sway for ten sad years. Hung Sew-tsuen (better known
in China by his assumed title, Tien Wang) ... had read
Christian tracts, had learnt from a Christian missionary; and
when he announced publicly three years afterwards that part of
his mission was to destroy the temples and images, and showed
in the jargon of his pretended visions some traces of his New
Testament study, the conclusion was instantly seized by the
sanguine minds of a section set upon evangelizing the East,
that their efforts had produced a true prophet, fit for the
work. Wedded to this fancy, they rejected as the inventions of
the enemies of missions the tales of Taiping cruelty which
soon reached Europe: and long after the details of the
impostor's life at Nankin, with its medley of visions,
executions, edicts, and harem indulgence, became notorious to
the world, prayers were offered for his success by devotees in
Great Britain as bigoted to his cause as the bloodiest
commander, or 'Wang,' whom he had raised from the ranks of his
followers to carry out his 'exterminating decrees.' The
Taiping cause was lost in China before it was wholly abandoned
by these fanatics in England, and their belief in its
excellence so powerfully reacted on our policy, that it might
have preserved us from active intervention down to the present
time, had not certain Imperialist successes elsewhere, the
diminishing means of their wasted possessions, and the
rashness of their own chiefs, brought the Taiping arms into
direct collision with us. And with the occasion there was
happily raised up the man whose prowess was to scatter their
blood-cemented empire to pieces far more speedily than it had
been built up."
C. C. Chesney, Essays in Military Biog., chapter 10
"The Taiping rebellion was of so barbarous a nature that its
suppression had become necessary in the interests of
civilization. A force raised at the expense of the Shanghai
merchants, and supported by the Chinese government, had been
for some years struggling against its progress. This force,
known as the 'Ever Victorious Army,' was commanded at first by
Ward, an American, and, on his death, by Burgevine, also an
American, who was summarily dismissed; for a short time the
command was held by Holland, an English marine officer, but he
was defeated at Taitsan 22 February, 1863, Li Hung Chang,
governor-general of the Kiang provinces, then applied to the
British commander-in-chief for the services of an English
officer, and Gordon [Charles George, subsequently known as
'Chinese Gordon'] was authorised to accept the command. He
arrived at Sung-Kiong and entered on his new duties as a
mandarin and lieutenant-colonel in the Chinese service on 24
March 1863. His force was composed of some three to four
thousand Chinese, officered by 150 Europeans of almost every
nationality and often of doubtful character. By the
indomitable will of its commander this heterogeneous body was
moulded into a little army whose high-sounding title of
'ever-victorious' became a reality, and in less than two
years, after 33 engagements, the power of the Taipings was
completely broken and the rebellion stamped out. The theatre
of operations was the district of Kiangsoo, lying between the
Yang-tze-Kiang river in the north and the bay of Hang-chow in
the south." Before the summer of 1863 was over, Gordon had
raised the rebel siege of Chanzu, and taken from the Taipings
the towns of Fushan, Taitsan, Quinsan, Kahpoo, Wokong,
Patachiaow, Leeku, Wanti, and Fusaiqwan. Finally, in December,
the great city of Soo-chow was surrendered to him, Gordon was
always in front of all his storming parties, "carrying no
other weapon than a little cane. His men called it his 'magic
wand,' regarding it as a charm that protected his life and led
them on to victory. When Soo-chow fell Gordon had stipulated
with the Governor-general Li for the lives of the Wangs (rebel
leaders). They were treacherously murdered by Li's orders.
Indignant at this perfidy, Gordon refused to serve any longer
with Governor Li, and when on 1 Jan, 1864 money anti rewards
were heaped upon him by the Emperor, declined them all. ...
After some [two] months of inaction it became evident that if
Gordon did not again take the field the Taipings would regain
the rescued country," and he was prevailed upon to resume his
campaign, which, although badly wounded in one of the battles,
he brought to an end in the following April (1864), by the
capture of Chan-chu-fu, "This victory not only ended the
campaign but completely destroyed the rebellion, and the
Chinese regular forces were enabled to occupy Nankin in the
July following. The large money present offered to Gordon by
the emperor was again declined, although he had spent his pay
in promoting the efficiency of his force, so that he wrote
home: 'I shall leave China as poor as when I entered it.'"
Colonel R. H. Veitch, Charles George Gordon
(Dictionary of Nat. Biog.)
ALSO IN:
A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapter 3-8.
W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapter 2.
S. Mossman, General Gordon in China.
Private Diary of Gen. Gordon in China.
Mm. Callery and Yvan, History of the Insurrection in China.
CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860,
War with England and France.
Bombardment and capture of Canton.
The Allies in Pekin.
Their destruction of the Summer Palace.
Terms of peace.
The speech from the throne at the opening of the English
Parliament, on February 3, 1857, "stated that acts of
violence, insults to the British flag, and infractions of
treaty rights, committed by the local authorities at Canton,
and a pertinacious refusal of redress, had rendered it
necessary for her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse
to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. The alleged
offences of the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their
single victim the lorcha 'Arrow.' The lorcha 'Arrow' was a
small boat built on the European model. The word 'Lorcha' is
taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at the mouth of
the Canton river. It often occurs in treaties with the Chinese
authorities. On October 8, 1856, a party of Chinese in charge
of an officer boarded the 'Arrow,' in the Canton river. They
took off twelve men on a charge of piracy, leaving two men in
charge of the lorcha, The 'Arrow' was declared by its owners
to be a British vessel.
{426}
Our consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from Yeh, the
Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the men, basing his
demand upon the Treaty of 1843, supplemental to the Treaty of
1842. This treaty did not give the Chinese authorities any
right to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on
board an English vessel. It merely gave them a right to
require the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the
English. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, contended, however, that
the lorcha was a Chinese pirate vessel, which had no right
whatever to hoist the flag of England. It may be plainly
stated at once that the 'Arrow' was not an English vessel, but
only a Chinese vessel which had obtained by false pretences
the temporary possession of a British flag. Mr. Consul Parkes,
however, was fussy, and he demanded the instant restoration of
the captured men, and he sent off to our Plenipotentiary at
Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, for authority and assistance in
the business. Sir John Bowring ... ordered the Chinese
authorities to surrender all the men taken from the 'Arrow,'
and he insisted that an apology should be offered for their
arrest, and a formal pledge given that no such act should ever
be committed again. If this were not done within forty-eight
hours, naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese.
The Chinese Governor, Yeh, sent back all the men, and
undertook to promise that for the future great care should be
taken that no British ships should be visited improperly by
Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for the
particular case of the 'Arrow,' for he still maintained, as
was indeed the fact, that the 'Arrow' was a Chinese vessel,
and that the English had nothing to do with her. Accordingly
Sir John Bowring carried out his threat, and had Canton
bombarded by the fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour
commanded. From October 23 to November 13 naval and military
operations were kept up continuously. Commissioner Yeh
retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the head of
every Englishman. This news from China created a considerable
sensation in England. On February 24, 1857, Lord Derby brought
forward in the House of Lords a motion, comprehensively
condemning the whole of the proceedings of the British
authorities in China. The debate would have been memorable if
only for the powerful speech in which the venerable Lord
Lyndhurst supported the motion, and exposed the utter
illegality of the course pursued by Sir John Bowring. The
House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby by a majority
of 146 to 110. On February 26 Mr. Cobden brought forward a
similar motion in the House of Commons. ... Mr. Cobden had
probably never dreamed of the amount or the nature of the
support his motion was destined to receive. The vote of
censure was carried by 263 votes against 247--a majority of
16. Lord Palmerston announced two or three days after that the
Government had resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the
country. Lord Palmerston understood his countrymen." In the
ensuing elections his victory was complete. "Cobden, Bright,
Milner Gibson, W. J. Fox, Layard, and many other leading
opponents of the Chinese policy, were left without seats. Lord
Palmerston came back to power with renewed and redoubled
strength." He "had the satisfaction before he left office [in
1858] of being able to announce the capture of Canton. The
operations against China had been virtually suspended ... when
the Indian Mutiny broke out. England had now got the
cooperation of France. France had a complaint of long standing
against China on account of the murder of some missionaries,
for which redress had been asked in vain. There was,
therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton [December, 1857],
and of course the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh
himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought for
and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was found at
last hidden away in some obscure part of a house. He was known
by his enormous fatness. ... He was put on board an English
man-of-war, and afterwards sent to Calcutta, where he died
early in the following year. Unless report greatly belied him
he had been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official.
The English and French Envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros,
succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the conditions of
the treaty, England and France were to have ministers at the
Chinese Court, on certain special occasions at least, and
China was to be represented in London and Paris; there was to
be toleration of Christianity in China, and a certain freedom
of access to Chinese rivers for English and French mercantile
vessels, and to the interior of China for English and French
subjects. China was to pay the expenses of the war. It was
further agreed that the term 'barbarian' was no longer to be
applied to Europeans in China. There was great congratulation
in England over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a
lasting peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted in
fact exactly a year. ... The treaty of Tien-tsin, which had
been arranged by Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, contained a clause
providing for the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin
within a year from the date of the signature, which took place
in June 1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother,
Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March 1859 Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Mr. Bruce
was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to Tien-tsin, and
thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications of the treaty.
Lord Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary ... impressed
upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to be put off from going to the
capital. Instructions were sent out from England at the same
time to Admiral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China,
to provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the
mouth of the Peiho. The Peiho river flows from the highlands
on the west into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the north-cast corner
of the Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about
100 miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho. It does not
stand on that river, which flows past it at some distance
westward, but it is connected with the river by means of a
canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on the Peiho near its
junction with one of the many rivers that flow into it, and
about forty miles from the mouth. The entrance to the Peiho
was defended by the Taku forts. On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce
and the French Envoy reached the mouth of the Peiho with
Admiral Hope's fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort
them. They found the forts defended; some negotiations and
inter-communications took place, and a Chinese official from
Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and endeavoured to obtain some
delay or compromise.
{427}
Mr. Bruce became convinced that the condition of things
predicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that the
Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his purpose. He
called on Admiral Hope to clear a passage for the vessels.
When the Admiral brought up his gunboats the forts opened
fire. The Chinese artillerymen showed unexpected skill and
precision. Four of the gunboats were almost immediately
disabled. All the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope
attempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete
failure. Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the
commander of the French vessel which had contributed a
contingent to the storming party. The attempt to force a
passage of the river was given up and the mission to Pekin was
over for the present. It seems only fair to say that the
Chinese at the mouth of the Peiho cannot be accused of
perfidy. They had mounted the forts and barricaded the river
openly and even ostentatiously. ... It will be easily imagined
that the news created a deep sensation in England. People in
general made up their minds at once that the matter could not
be allowed to rest there, and that the mission to Pekin must
be enforced. ... Before the whole question came to be
discussed in Parliament the Conservatives had gone out and the
Liberals had come in. The English and French Governments
determined that the men who had made the treaty of
Tien-tsin--Lord Elgin and Baron Gros--should be sent back to
insist on its reinforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to
the military command of our land forces, and General Cousin de
Montauban, afterwards Count Palikao, commanded the soldiers of
France. The Chinese, to do them justice, fought very bravely,
but of course they had no chance whatever against such forces
as those commanded by the English and French generals. The
allies captured the Taku forts [August, 1860], occupied
Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese Government
endeavoured to negotiate for peace, and to interpose any
manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise, between the allies
and their progress to the capital. Lord Elgin consented at
last to enter into negotiations at Tungchow, a walled town ten
or twelve miles nearer than Pekin. Before the negotiations
took place, Lord Elgin's secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch,
some English officers, Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent of the
'Times,' and some members of the staff of Baron Gros, were
treacherously seized by the Chinese while under a flag of
truce and dragged off to various prisons. Mr. Parkes and Mr.
Loch, with eleven of their companions, were afterwards
released, after having been treated with much cruelty and
indignity, but thirteen of the prisoners died of the horrible
ill-treatment they received. Lord Elgin refused to negotiate
until the prisoners had been returned, and the allied armies
were actually at one of the great gates of Pekin, and had
their guns in position to blow the gate in, when the Chinese
acceded to their terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies
entered the city, and the English and French flags were
hoisted side by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after
entering the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the
captives. He then determined that the Summer Palace should be
burnt down as a means of impressing the mind of the Chinese
authorities generally with some sense of the danger of
treachery and foul play. Two days were occupied in the
destruction of the palace. It covered an area of many miles.
Gardens, temples, small lodges, and pagodas, groves, grottoes,
lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the
vast space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities,
archaeological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese
taste, such as it was, could bring together, had been
accumulated in this magnificent pleasaunce. The surrounding
scenery was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted
one side of the enclosure. The buildings were set on fire; the
whole place was given over to destruction. A monument was
raised with an inscription in Chinese, setting forth that such
was the reward of perfidy and cruelty. Very different opinions
were held in England as to the destruction of the Imperial
palace. To many it seemed an act of unintelligible and
unpardonable vandalism. Lord Elgin explained, that if he did
not demand the surrender of the actual perpetrators, it was
because he knew full well that no difficulty would have been
made about giving him a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese
Government would have selected for vicarious punishment, in
all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortunate wretches who
had nothing to do with the murders. ... It is somewhat
singular that so many persons should have been roused to
indignation by the destruction of a building who took with
perfect composure the unjust invasion of a country. The allied
powers now of course had it all their own way. England
established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether the
Chinese liked it or not. China had to pay a war indemnity, and
a large sum of money as compensation to the families of the
murdered prisoners and to those who had suffered injuries, and
to make an apology for the attack by the garrison of the Taku
forts. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe from the war
was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so large a
city as we had all imagined it to be, and that it was on the
whole rather a crumbling and tumble-down sort of place."
J. McCarthy, Short History of our own Time, chapter 12, 15,
17 (chapters 30 and 42, volume 3, of larger work).
ALSO IN:
L. Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin's Mission,
volume 1.
H. B. Loch, Personal Narrative.
S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 25 (volume 2).
Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapter 3.
CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
Treaty with the United States.
The Burlingame Embassy and the Burlingame Treaties.
"The government of the United States viewed with anxiety the
new breaking out of hostilities between Great Britain,
supported by France as an ally, and China, in the year 1856.
President Buchanan sent thither the Honorable William B. Reed to
watch the course of events, and to act the part of a mediator
and peacemaker when opportunity should offer. In this he was
sustained by the influence of Russia. Mr. Reed arrived in Hong
Kong, on the fine war steamer Minnesota, November 7, 1857. He
at once set himself to remove the difficulties between the
English and Chinese, and save if possible the future effusion
of blood. He endeavored in vain to persuade the proud and
obstinate governor Yeh to yield, and save Canton from
bombardment.
{428}
He proceeded to the north, and made on behalf of his
government a treaty of peace with China which was signed June
18. The first article of the treaty contains a significant
reference to the posture of the United States in relation to
the war then in progress, as well as to any which might
thereafter arise. The article says: 'There shall be, as there
have always been, peace and friendship between the United
States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire, and between their
people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each
other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement
between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or
oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices,
on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable
arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly
feelings.' A subsequent article of this treaty is to be
interpreted by keeping in view the bitter root of the
difficulties between Great Britain and China which led to the
previous war of 1839 to '42, and to this war. After stating
the ports where Americans shall be permitted to reside and
their vessels to trade, it continues in the following
language: 'But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine
and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to
be legal, or along the coasts thereof; and any vessel under
the American flag violating this provision shall, with her
cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese government;
and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any
contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt
with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any
countenance or protection from that of the United States; and
the United States will take measures to prevent their flag
from being abused by the subjects of other nations as a cover
for the violation of the laws of the empire.'... The
development of the foreign trade with China during the brief
time which has passed [1870] since the last war has been very
great. ... The American government has been represented most
of the time by the Honorable Anson Burlingame, who has taken the
lead, with remarkable ability and success, in establishing the
policy of peaceful co-operation between the chief
treaty-powers, in encouraging the Chinese to adopt a more wise
and progressive policy in their entercourse with foreign
nations and in the introduction of the improvements of the
age. ... Mr. Burlingame, who had been in China six years,
determined [in 1867] to resign his post and return to America.
The news of it excited much regret among both Chinese and
foreign diplomatists. The former endeavored in vain to
dissuade him from his purpose. Failing to accomplish this, he
was invited by Prince Kung to a farewell entertainment, at
which were present many of the leading officers of the
government. During it they expressed to him their gratitude
for his offices to them as an intelligent and disinterested
counselor and friend. And they seem to have conceived at this
time the thought of putting the relations of the empire with
foreign countries upon a more just and equal basis, by sending
to them an imperial embassy of which he should be the head.
They promptly consulted some of their more reliable friends
among the foreign gentlemen at the capital, and in two days
after they tendered to Mr. Burlingame, much to his surprise,
the appointment of minister plenipotentiary of China to the
Western powers. ... Mr. Burlingame left the Chinese capital on
the 25th of November, 1867. The embassy consisted, besides the
principal, of Chih-kang and Sun Chia-ku, a Manchu and a
Chinese officer, each wearing the red ball on his cap which
indicates an official of a rank next to the highest in the
empire; J. McLeary Brown, formerly of the British legation,
and M. Deschamps, as secretaries; Teh Ming and Fung I as
Chinese attachés, and several other persons in subordinate
positions. ... It went to Shanghai, thence to San Francisco,
where it was most cordially welcomed by both the American and
Chinese mercantile communities. It reached Washington in May,
1868. The embassy was treated with much distinction at the
American capital. No American statesman was so capable and
disposed to enter cordially into its objects as the Secretary
of State at that time, the Honorable William H. Seward, whose mind
had long apprehended the great features of the policy which
American and foreign nations should pursue in relation to the
Chinese empire. On the 16th of July the Senate of the United
States ratified a treaty which he had made in behalf of this
country with the representative of the Chinese government. The
treaty defines and fixes the principles of the intercourse of
Western nations with China, of the importance of which I have
already spoken. It secures the territorial integrity of the
empire, and concedes to China the rights which the civilized
nations of the world, accord to each other as to eminent
domain over land and waters, and jurisdiction over persons and
property therein. It takes the first step toward the
appointment of Chinese consuls in our seaports--a measure
promotive of both Chinese and American interests. It secures
exemption from all disability or persecution on account of
religious faith in either country. It recognizes the right of
voluntary emigration and makes penal the wrongs of the coolie
traffic. It pledges privileges as to travel or residence in
either country such as are enjoyed by the most favored nation.
It grants to the Chinese permission to attend our schools and
colleges, and allows us to freely establish and maintain
schools in China. And while it acknowledges the right of the
Chinese government to control its own whole interior
arrangements, as to railroads, telegraphs and other internal
improvements, it suggests the willingness of our government to
afford aid toward their construction by designating and
authorizing suitable engineers to perform the work, at the
expense of the Chinese government. The treaty expressly leaves
the question of naturalization in either country an open one.
... It is not necessary to follow in detail the progress of
this first imperial Chinese embassy. In England it was
received at first very coldly, and it was some months before
proper attention could be secured from the government to its
objects. At length, however, on November 20, it was presented
to the queen at Windsor Castle. ... What heart is there that
will not join in the cordial wish that the treaties made by
the embassy with Great Britain, France, Prussia and other
European powers may be the commencement of a new era in the
diplomatic and national intercourse of China with those and
all other lands of the West!"
W. Speer, The Oldest and the Newest Empire, ch, 14.
ALSO IN:
Treaties and Conventions between the
U. S. and other Powers (1889), page 159 and 179.
{429}
CHINA: A. D. 1884-1885.
War with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
CHINA: A. D. 1892.
Exclusion of Chinese from the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
CHINA: A. D. 1893.
The future of the Chinese.
A speculation.
"China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can
fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and
the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor
Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the
race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view.
On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from
Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating
the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in
Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for
sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of
Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very
formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia.
Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now
tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up
and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried
into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished
with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case
the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still
claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah,
and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious
discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the
expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the
world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no
European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was
so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of
office. ... 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in
this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only
people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised
territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of
our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how
the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the
population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best
observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own
against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and
Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the
small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of
all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to
governments and employers by their power of steady industry;
and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women
of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet
not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have
retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have
mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish
in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the
government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration;
English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in
their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang
that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre;
and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil
of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the
emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing.
... Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not
work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have
to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives
who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will
be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo
is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled
like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000.
... In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as
sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who
organise where they can in a way that precludes competition,
are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not
destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the
position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in
Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its
inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world,
and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly
Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger
part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands?
or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or
diplomacy, into the possession of China? ... There are those
who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the
Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without
assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be
realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a
people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural
resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and
spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."
C. H. Pearson, National Life and Character,
pages 45-51.
----------CHINA: End----------
CHINANTECS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
CH'ING OR TSING DYNASTY, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
CHINGIS KHAN, Conquests of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
CHINOOK, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY.
CHIOGGIA, The War of.
See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
CHIOS.
The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in
modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's
birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait
only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of
Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at
the present day. The island was an important member of the
Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from
which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in
consequence.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
CHIOS: B. C. 413.
Revolt from Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
CHIOS: A. D. 1346.
Taken by the Genoese.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
CHIOS: A. D. 1681.
Blockade and attack by the French.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
CHIOS: A. D. 1770.
Temporary possession by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
CHIOS: A. D. 1822.
Turkish massacre of Christians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------CHIOS: End----------
CHIPPEWA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
{430}
CHIPPEWAS, OR OJIBWAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
AND OJIBWAS.
CHIPPEWYANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
CHITON, The.
"The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of
cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through
a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being
fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or
clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was
completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of
which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched
together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon
or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as
required by pulling it through this girdle. ... Frequently
sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or
continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. ... The
short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children
on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both
shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free
citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton
with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the
chest remaining quite uncovered. ... It appears clearly that
the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open
and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed
double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of
cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on
both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as
in a cylinder."
E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 41.
"The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian
maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and
without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large
clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This
sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to
the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both
sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they
walked, entirely exposed their limbs. ... The married women,
however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,'
but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to
have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."
J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 3, chapter 6.
CHITTIM.
See KITTIM.
CHIVALRY.
"The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the
French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of
soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that
general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and
modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present
article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in
modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood,
established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages,
and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed.
Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their
effects may still be traced in European manners; and,
excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction
of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced
such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and
moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of
chivalry. ... From the time that cavalry becomes used in war,
the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in
all countries, into a person of superior importance to the
mere foot-soldier. ... In various military nations, therefore,
we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the
state. ... But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed
to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and
imposing character. They were not merely respected on account
of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by
a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were
ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and
governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the
military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated
with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to
assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long
and severe probation, during which they practised, as
acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry.
Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble
youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at
least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and
the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time
in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of
eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in
future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of
humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to
display those of a higher order. ... In the general and
abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body
of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were
invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with
reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions
and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either
original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was
in the singular tenets of Chivalry,--in the exalted,
enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with
its duties,--in the singular balance which its institutions
offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose,
that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so
worthy of our attention. ... The education of the future
knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after
the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too
tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too
effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of
chivalry. ... To counteract these habits of indulgence, the
first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page.
The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth
year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some
baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious
parent as that which had the best reputation for good order
and discipline. ... When advancing age and experience in the
use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and
dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the
second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire,
or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much
contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from
its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the
shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to
engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more
remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the
knight being under the especial care of the squire.
{431}
Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to
the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and
to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times,
became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the
appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means
anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms.
There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning
of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a
title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in
1579. ... In actual war the page was not expected to render
much service, but that of the squire was important and
indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of
the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal
fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led
in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney.
The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an
armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his
cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which
the various pieces were united to each other. ... In the
actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the
banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a
knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was
at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve
him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners
they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself
fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. ... A
youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier,
and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until
he was one-and-twenty. ... Knighthood was, in its origin, an
order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature;
arising ... from the customs of the free tribes of Germany
[see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the
sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could
confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory
noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest
potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the
honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose
achievements had dignified the period. ... Though no positive
regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of
the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign
princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the
latter the power of conferring knighthood. ... Knights were
usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory
had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of
some solemn warning or grand festival. ... The spirit of
chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and
moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually
introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally
great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of
thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end
of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed
forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may
be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or
general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which
actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But
its most brilliant period was during the wars between France
and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that
the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered
by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity
for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer
terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently
makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and
English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons
to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain
and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every
kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a
greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the
emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the
Christians. But even during this splendid period, various
causes were silently operating the future extinction of the
flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important
discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and
was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its
highest glory. ... Another change, of vital importance, arose
from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at
arms in France, constituted ... expressly as a sort of
standing army. ... A more fatal cause had, however, been for
some time operating in England, as well as France, for the
destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York
and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of
the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was
utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and
gentleness, proper to chivalry. ... The civil wars not only
operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting
and destroying the particular class of society from which its
votaries were drawn."
Sir W. Scott, Essay on Chivalry.
ALSO IN: G
P. R. James, History of Chivalry.
H. Hallam, State of Europe during the Middle
Ages, chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3).
F. P. Guizot, History of Civilization in France, 6th lecture,
2d course (volume 4).
C. Mills, History of Chivalry.
H. Stebbing, History of Chivalry and the Crusades.
L. Gautier, Chivalry.
K. H. Digby, The Broadstone of Honour.
Dr. Doran, Knights and their Days.
See, also, KNIGHTHOOD, ORDERS OF.
CHLAMYS, The.
"The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] ... was an oblong
piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends
being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp;
the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept
straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was
principally used by travellers and soldiers."
E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 42.
CHOCIM.
See CHOCZIM.
CHOCTAWS, OR CHA'HTAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622.
Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.
See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672.
Taken by Sobieska and the Poles.
Great defeat of the Turks.
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1739.
Captured by the Russians and restored to the Turks.
See Russia: A. D.1725-1739.
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1769.
Taken by the Russians.
Defeat of the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
{432}
CHOCZIM: A. D. 1790.
Defeat of the Turks by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
----------CHOCZIM: End----------
CHOLET, Battles of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
CHOLULA: Pyramids at.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
CHOLULA: A. D. 1519.
The Massacre at.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (OCTOBER).
----------CHOLULA: End----------
CHONTALS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.
CHONTAQUIROS, OR PIRU, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
CHORASMIA.
See KHUAREZM.
CHOREGIA.
See LITURGIES.
CHOTUSITZ, OR CZASLAU, Battle of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
CHOTYN.
See CHOCZIM.
CHOUANS.--CHOUANNERIE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
CHOUT.
The blackmail levied by the Mahrattas.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
CHOWANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
CHREMONIDEAN WAR, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
CHRIST, Knights of the Order of.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
CHRISTIAN I.,
King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, A. D. 1448-1481.
Christian II., A. D. 1513-1523.
Christian III., King of Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1534-1558.
Christian IV., A.. D. 1588-1648.
Christian V., A. D. 1670-1699.
Christian VI., A. D. 1730-1746.
Christian VII., A. D. 1766-1808.
Christian VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1839-1848.
Christian IX., A. D. 1863-.
CHRISTIAN COMMISSION, The United States.
See SANITARY COMMISSION.
CHRISTIAN ERA.
See ERA, CHRISTIAN.
CHRISTIANITY:
"Historical geography has of late years become an integral
part of the historical science. Recent investigations have
opened up the subject and a solid beginning has been made--but
it is only a beginning. It is clearly recognized that the land
itself as it appears at different periods is one of those
invaluable original documents upon which history is built, and
no stone is being left unturned to clear away mysteries and to
bring to our aid a realism hitherto unknown to the science.
... But the special branch of this vast and complicated theme
of historical geography which interests us most and which I
desire briefly to bring to your attention is that which deals
with the Christian Church. ... Our eyes first rest upon that
little group at Jerusalem that made up the Pentecostal Church.
Its spread was conditioned by the extent and character of the
Roman Empire, by the municipal genius of that empire, its
great highways by land and sea; conditioned by the commercial
routes and the track of armies outside the bounds of
civilization; conditioned by the spread of languages--
Aramaic, Greek, and Latin,--and, most important of all,
conditioned by the whereabouts of the seven million Jews
massed in Syria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and scattered
everywhere throughout the Empire and far beyond its
boundaries."
H. W. Hulbert, The Historical Geography of the Christian
Church (American Society of Church History, volume 3).
"When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that
in the West, we seem in quite a different atmosphere. Despite
their intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves,
their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the
opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of
the East rested the future of Judaism; with them of the West,
in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old Israel
groping back into the darkness of the past; the other young
Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new
day was about to break. These Jews of the West are known by
the term Hellenists. ... The translation of the Old Testament
into Greek may be regarded as the starting point of Hellenism.
It rendered possible the hope that what in its original form
had been confined to the few, might become accessible to the
world at large. ... In the account of the truly representative
gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks,
the division of the 'dispersion' into two grand sections--the
Eastern or Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or
Hellenist--seems clearly marked. In this arrangement the
former would include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and
dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judæa standing, so to speak, in the
middle, while 'the Cretes and Arabians' would typically
represent the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western
and Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New
Testament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of the
'dispersion of the Greeks', and of 'Hellenists' or 'Grecians.'
On the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited
Babylon and many of the other satrapies,' were included with
the Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,'
from the common language which they spoke. But the difference
between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews' was far deeper than
merely of language, and extended to the whole direction of
thought."
A. Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
volume 1, book 1, chapter 2-3, and 1.
"Before Pentecost an assembly of the believers took place, at
which the post vacated in the number of the apostles by the
suicide of the traitor Judas of Kerioth, was filled up by the
election of Matthias by lot. On this occasion the number of
the assembled brethren amounted to about 120 men. ... At the
feast of Pentecost ... a very considerable accession was made
to the formerly moderate band of believers in Jerusalem; ...
about 3,000 souls received the word and were joined to the
Church by baptism (Acts ii. 41). We must not, however, at once
credit the Church in Jerusalem with this increase. For among
the listeners to the apostolic discourse there were
Israelitish guests and proselytes from near and distant
countries (ii. 5, 9-11, 14), whence we may infer that of those
newly converted many were not living in Jerusalem itself, but
partly in Judæa and Galilee, partly in countries beyond
Palestine, who therefore returned home after the feast days
were ended.
{433}
Some of these might, under certain circumstances, form
the centre of a small Church in the dispersion, so that
gradually Churches may have arisen to which also James may
possibly have addressed his Epistle. ... So abundantly did God
bless with success the activity of the early apostles though
limited to the nation of Israel and the land of Canaan, and
their fidelity within a circumscribed sphere. Hence there
existed at the end of the period of which we treat numerous
Christian Churches in Jerusalem and the whole country of Judæa
(comp. Galatians i. 22, etc.: Acts xi. 1), also on the coast (Acts
ix. 32-35, etc.) in Samaria and Galilee, and finally in Syria,
Phenicia, and Cyprus, (Acts ix. 2, 10, 25, xi. 19), some of
which were directly, some indirectly, founded by the Twelve,
and were, in any case, governed and guided by them.' In the
above named districts outside Palestine, it might not, indeed,
have been easy to find a Christian Church consisting
exclusively of believing Jews, for as a rule they consisted of
believing Jews and individual Gentiles. On the other hand, we
shall scarcely be wrong in regarding the Christian Churches
within Palestine itself as composed entirely of believing
Israelites. But even among these there were many distinctions,
e. g., between Palestinians and Hellenists."
G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
volume 1, pages 30-35.
"We find the early [Jewish] Christians observing the national
feasts and holidays (Acts ii. 1: xviii. 21: xx. 6, 16: Romans
xiv. 5). They take part in the worship of the temple and the
synagogue; they pray at the customary hours (chapters ii. 46;
iii. 1; volume 42; x. 9). They observe the fasts, and undergo
voluntary abstinence, binding themselves by special vows like
all pious Jews (xiii. 2: xvii. 18; xxi. 23). They scrupulously
avoid unlawful food, and all legal defilement (x. 14). They
have their children circumcised (xv. 5; xvi. 3; 65493 volume 2).
... This scrupulous piety won for them the esteem and
admiration of the people (chap. volume 13)." At first their creed
was "comprised in a single dogma: 'Jesus is the Messiah.' ...
Their preaching of the Gospel strictly followed the lines of
Messianic tradition (i. 7; ii. 36; iii. 20). ... But in
reality all this formed only the outside of their life and
creed. ... Herein lies the profound significance of the
miracle of Pentecost. That day was the birthday of the Church,
not because of the marvelous success of Peter's preaching, but
because the Christian principle, hitherto existing only
objectively and externally in the person of Jesus, passed from
that moment into the souls of His disciples. ... And thus in
the very midst of Judaism we see created and unfolded a form
of religious life essentially different from it--the Christian
life."
A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, pages 35-36.
"By the two parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,
Christ marked out the two sides or aspects of His truth--its
external growth from the least to the greatest, and its
internal action on society at large--as setting up a ferment,
and making a new lump out of the unkneaded mass of the old
humanity. With these two symbols in view we may gauge what the
gospel was designed to be and to do. It was to grow into a
great outward society--the tree of the Church; but it was also
to do a work on secular society as such, corresponding to the
action of leaven on flour. The history of Christianity has
been the carrying out of these two distinct and contrasted
conceptions; but how imperfectly, and under what drawbacks."
Reverend J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology
Contrasted, page 186.
"The organic connection of Jewish Christians with the
synagogue, which must, in accordance with the facts before us,
be regarded as a rule, is certainly not to be taken as a mere
incidental phenomenon, a customary habit or arbitrary
accommodation, but as a moral fact resting upon an internal
necessity, having its foundation in the love of Jewish
Christians to their nation, and in the adhesion of their
religious consciousness to the old covenant. To mistake this
would be to underrate the wide bearing of the fact. But lest
we should over-estimate its importance, we must at once
proceed to another consideration. Within Judaism we must
distinguish not only the Rabbinical or Pharisaic tradition of
the original canonical revelation, but also within the canon
itself we have to distinguish the Levitical element from the
prophetic, ... taking the latter not in a close but a wide
sense as the living spiritual development of the theocracy."
G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
volume 1, page 54.
"Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly
independent of his religious obligations. To him it was a
national institution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the
Gospel he might consider his relations to it in this latter
character altered, but as embodying the decrees and usages of
his country it still demanded his allegiance. To be a good
Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen. On these
grounds the more enlightened members of the mother-church
would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor is
there any reason to suppose that St. Paul himself took a
different view of their obligations."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 67.
"The term 'Jewish-Christianity' is applicable exclusively to
those Christians who really retained, entirely or in the
smallest part, the national and political forms of Judaism and
insisted upon the observance of the Mosaic Law without
modification as essential to Christianity, at least to the
Christianity of the Jewish-born converts, or who indeed
rejected these forms, but acknowledged the prerogative of the
Jewish people also in Christianity."
A. Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, page 75.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.
The Rise of the Churches.
Jerusalem.
"After the miraculous healing of the cripple and the discourse
of the Apostle Peter on that occasion, the historian goes on
to say, Many of them which heard the word believed, and the
number of the men was about 5,000' (iv. 4). It seems as if in
consequence of this event, which made no little stir, a larger
number joined themselves to the Church. Nor is it probable
that this healing took place until a long time after the
beginning of the Church. The miracle, with the effect which it
had, serves as a resting place at which the result of the
previous growth of the Church may be ascertained. And here the
number again incidentally mentioned refers without doubt to
the Church at Jerusalem."
G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,
volume 1, page 32.
{434}
The early history of the Churches "falls into three periods
which mark three distinct stages in its progress:
(1) The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles;
(2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty;
(3) The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches.
... And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt.
The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of
Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power of
Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria,
attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia,
swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and
court of the Cæsars, these outlying members of the chosen race
had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than
their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible
gradations--proselytes of the covenant--proselytes of the
gate--superstitious devotees who observed the rites without
accepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation--curious
lookers-on who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as
they would in the worship of Isis or of Astarte--the most
stubborn zealot of the law was linked to the idolatrous
heathen whom he abhorred and who despised him in turn. Thus
the train was unconsciously laid, when the spark fell from
heaven and fired it. ... Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years
passed away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The
Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined
their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the
proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach was made, and
the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. The first
step towards the creation of an organized ministry was also
the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The
Jews of Judæa, 'Hebrews of the Hebrews' had ever regarded
their Hellenist brethren with suspicion and distrust; and this
estrangement reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The
interests of the Hellenist widows had been neglected in the
daily distribution of alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of the
Hellenists against the Hebrews' (Acts vi. 1), which was met by
the appointment of seven persons specially charged with
providing for the wants of these neglected poor. If the
selection was made, as St. Luke's language seems to imply, not
by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church at large (vi.
2), the concession when granted was carried out in a liberal
spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to a
Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is
especially described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to
represent a hitherto small but growing section of the
community. By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained
a status in the Church; and the effects of this measure soon
became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently forward
as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and
martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
pages 50-52.
"The Hellenist Stephen roused deep-stirring movements chiefly
in Hellenist circles. ... The persecution of the Jerusalem
community--perhaps specially of its Hellenist part--which
followed the stoning of Stephen, became a means of promoting
the spread of the Christian faith to ... Cyprus, at last to so
important a centre as Antioch, the imperial capital of the
East. To the winning of the Jews to faith in Jesus there is
already added the reception into the Christian community of
the pious Gentile Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate. ...
Though this appears in tradition as an individual case
sanctioned by special Divine guidance, in the meantime
Hellenist Christians had already begun to preach the Gospel to
born Greeks, also at Antioch in Syria, and successfully (Acts
xi. 19-26), Barnabas is sent thither from Jerusalem."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,
page 53-54.
"Philip, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached
Christ to the Samaritans. ... The Apostles who had remained at
Jerusalem, hearing of the success of Philip's preaching, sent
two of their number into this new and fruitful field of labor.
... Peter and John return to Jerusalem while the Deacon Philip
is called, by a new manifestation of the will of God, yet
further to extend the field of Christian missions. It is not a
Samaritan but a pagan, whom he next instructs in the truth.
... He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the court
of Meroë, treasurer of the Queen. ... This man, a pagan by
birth, had taken a long journey to worship the true God in the
temple of Jerusalem."
E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity,
pages 71-74.
"For the sake of the popular feeling Herod Agrippa laid hands
on members of the community, and caused James the brother of
John (the sons of Zebedee) to be put to death by the sword, in
the year 44, for soon thereafter Herod Agrippa died. Peter
also was taken prisoner, but miraculously escaped and
provisionally left Jerusalem. From this time on James the
brother of the Lord appears ever more and more as really
bearing rank as head of the Jerusalem community, while Peter
more and more devotes himself to the apostolic mission abroad,
and indeed, more accurately, to the mission in Israel."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 55.
"The accounts which we have regarding the apostle Peter,
represent him as preaching the gospel from the far east to
distant parts of the west. ... According to his own words, he
founded churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia, and according to the testimony of ancient historians
of the Church in the east also; in Syria, Babylon,
Mesopotamia, Chaldaea, Arabia, Phoenicia and Egypt, and in the
west, at Rome, in Britain, Ireland, Helvetia and Spain."
J. E. T. Wiltsch, Hand Book of the Geography and
Statistics of The Church, volume 1, pages 19-20.
"Three and three only of the personal disciples and immediate
followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the
Apostolic records--James, Peter, and John; the first the
Lord's brother, the two latter the foremost members of the
Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of
James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single
sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the
last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. Thenceforward
they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. And this
silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. We
read indeed of St. Thomas in India, of St. Andrew in Scythia;
but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as
trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church
could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured
zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel; but, so
far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual
mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the
foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early
ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St. Paul,
and the three Apostles of the Circumcision."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 46.
{435}
"While Peter (as it appears) is occupied with the work of
preaching to the Jews outside of Palestine, the community at
Jerusalem, and indeed the Palestinian communities in general,
stand under the leadership of the brother of the Lord, James,
as their recognised head. They remain strictly in the life of
the law, and still hold securely to the hope of the conversion
of the whole of God's people (which Paul had for the present
given up). The mission to the Gentiles is indeed recognised,
but the manner of its conduct by Paul and the powerful
increase of Pauline communities excite misgivings and
dissensions. For in these mixed communities, in the presence
of what is often a preponderating Gentile element, it becomes
ever clearer in what direction the development is pressing;
that, in fact, for the sake of the higher Christian communion
the legal customs even of the Jewish Christians in these
communities must inevitably be broken down, and general
Christian freedom, on principle, from the commands of the law,
gain recognition."
Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, History of the Christian Church,
page 73.
"The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the Autumn of the year 70
[see JEWS: A. D. 66-70]. And soon the catastrophe came which
solved the difficult problem. ... Jerusalem was razed to the
ground, and the Temple-worship ceased, never again to be
revived. The Christians foreseeing the calamity had fled
before the tempest. ... Before the crisis came, they had been
deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading apostles.
Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia
Minor; James, the Lord's brother, was slain not long before
the great catastrophe. ... He was succeeded by his cousin
Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew of Joseph. Under these
circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. Its history in
the ages following is a hopeless blank."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 68.
"While Cæsarea succeeded Jerusalem as the political capital of
Palestine, Antioch succeeded it as the centre of Christendom."
A. Plummer, Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 3.
CHRISTIANITY: Antioch.
"Under Macedonian rule the Greek intellect had become the
leading intellectual power of the world. The great
Greek-speaking towns of the East were alike the strongholds of
intellectual power, the battlefields of opinion and systems,
and the laboratories of scientific research, where discoveries
were made and literary undertakings requiring the combination
of forces were carried out. Such was Antioch on the Orontes,
the meeting point of Syrian and Greek intellect; such, above
all, was Alexandria."
J. J. von Döllinger, Studies in European History,
page 165.
"The chief line along which the new religion developed was
that which led from Syrian Antioch through the Cilician Gates,
across Lycaonia to Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. One subsidiary
line followed the land route by Philadelphia, Troas, Philippi,
and the Egnatian Way to Brindisi and Rome; and another went
north from the Gates by Tyana and Cæsareia of Cappadocia to
Amisos in Pontus, the great harbour of the Black Sea, by which
the trade of Central Asia was carried to Rome. The maintenance
of close and constant communication between the scattered
congregations must be presupposed, as necessary to explain the
growth of the Church and the attitude which the State assumed
towards it. Such communication was, on the view advocated in
the present work, maintained along the same lines on which the
general development of the Empire took place; and politics,
education and religion grew side by side."
W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, page 10.
"The incitement to the wider preaching of the Gospel in the
Greek world starts from the Christian community at Antioch.
For this purpose Barnabas receives Paul as a companion (Acts
xiii., and xiv.) Saul, by birth a Jew of the tribe of
Benjamin, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, educated as a Pharisee;
and although indeed as a Hellenist, he had command of Greek
and had come into contact with Greek culture and Greek life,
yet had not actually passed through the discipline of Greek
culture, was introduced by Gamaliel to the learned study of
the law, and his whole soul was seized with fiery zeal for the
Statutes of the fathers. ... After [his conversion and] his
stay in Damascus and in Arabia and the visit to Peter (and
James) at Jerusalem, having gone to Syria and Cilicia, he was
taken to Antioch by Barnabas."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 57.
"The strength and zeal of the Antioch Christian society are
shown in the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas, with Mark, a
cousin of Barnabas, for their companion for a part of the way,
on a preaching tour in the eastern districts of Asia Minor.
First they visited Cyprus, where Sergius Paulus, the
proconsul, was converted. Thence they sailed to Attalia, on
the southern coast of Pamphylia, and near Perga; from Perga
they proceeded to Antioch in Pisidia, and from there eastward
to Iconium, and as far as Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia.
Retracing their steps, they came back to Attalia, and sailed
directly to Antioch. ... This was the first incursion of Paul
into the domain of heathenism."
G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, page 22.
"How then should Paul and Barnabas proceed? To leave Syria
they must go first to Seleuceia, the harbour of Antioch, where
they would find ships going south to the Syrian coast and
Egypt, and west either by way of Cyprus or along the coast of
Asia Minor. The western route led toward the Roman world, to
which all Paul's subsequent history proves that he considered
himself called by the Spirit. The Apostles embarked in a ship
for Cyprus, which was very closely connected by commerce and
general intercourse with the Syrian coast. After traversing
the island from east to west, they must go onward. Ships going
westward naturally went across the coast of Pamphylia, and the
Apostles, after reaching Paphos, near the west end of Cyprus,
sailed in one of these ships, and landed at Attalia in
Pamphylia."
W. M. Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire, page 60.
"The work starting from Antioch, by which access to the faith
is opened to the Gentiles, the formation of (preponderatingly)
Gentile Christian communities, now introduces into the
original Christian development an important problem, which
(about the year 52, probably not later), (Galatians ii.; Acts xv.)
leads to discussions and explanations at the so-called
Apostolic Council [at Jerusalem]. ... For Paul, who has risen
to perfect independence by the energy of his own peculiar
stamp of gospel, there now begin the years of his powerful
activity, in which he not only again visits and extends his
former missionary field in Asia Minor, but gains a firm
footing in Macedonia (Philippi), Athens, and Achaia (Corinth);
then on the so-called third missionary journey he exercises a
comprehensive influence during a stay of nearly three years at
Ephesus, and finally looks from Achaia towards the metropolis
of the world."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, pages 57-59.
{436}
"If the heathen whom he (Paul) had won to the faith and
received into the Church were to be persuaded to adopt
circumcision and the law before they could attain to full
participation in the Christian salvation, his preaching had
fallen short of his aim, it had been in vain, since it was
very doubtful whether the Gentiles gained over to believe in
the Messiah would submit to the condition. Paul could only
look on those who made such a demand as false brethren, who
having no claim to Christian brotherhood had forced themselves
into the Church at Antioch in an unauthorized way (Galatians ii.
4), and was persuaded that neither the primitive Church as
such, nor its rulers, shared this view. In order therefore to
prevent the Gentile Christians from being disturbed on this
point, he determined to go to Jerusalem and there to challenge
a decision in the matter that should put an end to the strife
(ii. 2). The Church at Antioch also recognized this necessity;
hence followed the proceedings in Jerusalem [about A. D. 52],
whither Paul and Barnabas repaired with other associates (Galatians
ii. 1, Acts xv. 2 ff). ... It is certain that when Paul laid
his (free) gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem, they
added nothing to it (Galatians ii. 2-6). i. e., they did not
require that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles should,
besides the sole condition of faith which he laid down, impose
Judaism upon them as a condition of participation in
salvation. ... Paul's stipulations with the authorities in
Jerusalem respecting their future work were just as important
for him as the recognition of his free gospel (Galatians ii. 7-10).
They had for their basis a recognition on the part of the
primitive apostles that he was entrusted with the gospel of
the uncircumcision, to which they could add nothing (ii. 6),
just as Peter (as admittedly the most prominent among the
primitive apostles) was entrusted with that of the
circumcision."
Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New
Testament, volume 1, pages 172-175, 178.
"It seems clear that the first meetings of the Christians as a
community apart--meetings that is of a private rather than a
proselytising character--took place, as we see from Acts i.
13-15, in private apartments, the upper rooms or large
guest-chambers in the houses of individual members. Such a
room was doubtless provided by the liberality of Titus Justus
(Acts xviii. 7), such a room again was the upper chamber in
which St. Paul preached at Troas (Acts xx. 7, 8); in such
assembled the converts saluted by the Apostle as the church
which is in the house of Aquila and Prisca, of Nymphas and of
Philemon. ... The primitive Roman house had only one story,
but as the cities grew to be more densely populated upper
stories came into use, and it was the custom to place in these
dining apartments, which were called cenacula. Such apartments
would answer to the 'upper rooms' ... associated with the
early days of Christianity. ... The Christian communities
contained from an early period members of wealth and social
position, who could accommodate in their houses large
gatherings of the faithful; and it is interesting to reflect
that while some of the mansions of an ancient city might be
witnessing in suppers of a Trimalchio or a Virro, scenes more
revolting to modern taste than almost anything presented by
the pagan world, others, perhaps in the same street, might be
the seat of Christian worship or of the simple Christian
meal."
G. B. Brown, From Schola to Cathedral, pages 38-43.
CHRISTIANITY: Asia Minor and Greece.
"Our knowledge of the Apostle Paul's life is far from being
complete. We have only a brief sketch of journeys and toils
that extended over a period of thirty years. Large spaces are
passed over in silence. For example, in the catalogue of his
sufferings, incidentally given, he refers to the fact that he
had been shipwrecked three times, and these disasters were all
prior to the shipwreck on the Island of Malta described by
Luke. Shortly after the conference at Jerusalem he started on
his second missionary tour. He was accompanied by Silas, and
was joined by Timothy at Lystra. He revisited his converts in
Eastern Asia Minor, founded churches in Galatia and Phrygia,
and from Troas, obedient to a heavenly summons, crossed over
to Europe. Having planted at Philippi a church that remained
remarkably devoted and loyal to him, he followed the great
Roman road to Thessalonica, the most important city in
Macedonia. Driven from there and from Berea, he proceeded to
Athens [see ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?)]. In that renowned and
cultivated city he discoursed on Mars Hill to auditors eager
for new ideas in philosophy and religion, and in private
debated with Stoics and Epicureans. At Corinth, which had
risen from its ruins and was once more rich and prosperous, he
remained for a year and a half. It was there, probably, that
he wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonian Christians.
After a short stay at Ephesus he returned to Antioch by way of
Cesarea and Jerusalem. It was not long before Paul--a second
Alexander, but on a peaceful expedition--began his third great
missionary journey. Taking the land route from Antioch, he
traversed Asia Minor to Ephesus, a flourishing commercial
mart, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. There, with
occasional absences, he made his abode for upwards of two
years. From Ephesus, probably, he wrote the Epistle to the
Galatians. ... From Ephesus Paul also wrote the First Epistle
to the Corinthians. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians he
probably wrote from Philippi. ... Coming down through Greece,
he remained there three months. There he composed his Epistle
to the Romans. ... The untiring Apostle now turned his face
towards Jerusalem. He desired to be present at the festival of
the Pentecost. In order to save time, he sailed past Ephesus,
and at Miletus bade a tender farewell to the Ephesian elders.
He had fulfilled his pledge given at the conference, and he
now carried contributions from the Christians of Macedonia and
Achaia for the poor at Jerusalem."
G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,
pages 27-28.
"We may safely say that if Saul had been less of a Jew, Paul
the Apostle would have been less bold and independent. His
work would have been more superficial, and his mind less
unfettered. God did not choose a heathen to be the apostle for
the heathen; for he might have been ensnared by the traditions
of Judaism, by its priestly hierarchy and the splendours of
its worship, as indeed it happened with the church of the
second century. On the contrary God chose a Pharisee. But this
Pharisee had the most complete experience of the emptiness of
external ceremonies and the crushing yoke of the law. There
was no fear that he would ever look back, that he would be
tempted to set up again what the grace of God had justly
overthrown (Galatians ii. 18). Judaism was wholly vanquished
in his soul, for it was wholly displaced."
A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, page 69.
{437}
"Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen, in
spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which he
derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending
daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among the
Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. ... The most ardent
patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the glories of
the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the Romans. His
care for the poor in Judæa is a touching proof of the strength
of this national feeling. His attendance at the great annual
festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant. 'I must
spend the coming feast at Jerusalem.' This language becomes
the more striking when we remember that he was then intending
to open out a new field of missionary labour in the far West,
and was bidding perhaps his last farewell to the Holy City,
the joy of the whole earth."
J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pages 209-210.
"The Macedonian Churches are honorably distinguished above all
others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affectionate
regard for St. Paul himself. While the Church of Corinth
disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the
Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow
formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the
wildest speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the
brethren of Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian
congregations that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the
midst of his severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to
have chilled these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle
to the Philippians was written about ten years after the
Thessalonian letters. It is the more surprising therefore that
they should resemble each other so strongly in tone. In both
alike St. Paul drops his official title at the outset, ... and
in both he adopts throughout the same tone of confidence and
affection. In this interval of ten years we meet with one
notice of the Macedonian Churches. It is conceived in terms of
unmeasured praise. The Macedonians had been called upon to
contribute to the wants of their poorer brethren in Judæa, who
were suffering from famine. They had responded nobly to the
call. Deep-sunk in poverty and sorely tried by persecution,
they came forward with eager joy and poured out the riches of
their liberality, straining their means to the utmost in order
to relieve the sufferers. ... We may imagine that the people
still retained something of those simpler habits and that
sturdier character, which triumphed over Greeks and Orientals
in the days of Philip and Alexander, and thus in the early
warfare of the Christian Church the Macedonian phalanx offered
a successful resistance to the assaults of an enemy, before
which the lax and enervated ranks of Asia and Achaia had
yielded ignominiously."
J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pages 249-250.
At Jerusalem, "the Apostle was rescued by a detachment of the
Roman garrison from a mob of Jewish malignants, was held in
custody for two years at Cesarea, and was finally enabled to
accomplish a long-cherished intention to go to Rome, by being
conveyed there as a prisoner, he having made an appeal to
Cæsar. After being wrecked on the Mediterranean and cast
ashore on the Island of Malta, under the circumstances related
in Luke's graphic and accurate description of the voyage, he
went on his way in safety to the capital."
G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, page 29.
"Paul's apostolic career, as known to us, lasted ...
twenty-nine or thirty years; and it falls into three distinct
periods which are summarized in the following chronological
table:
First Period
Essentially Missionary:
35 A. D.,
Conversion of Paul, Journey to Arabia;
38,
First visit to Jerusalem;
38-49,
Mission in Syria and Cilicia-Tarsus and Antioch;
50-51,
First missionary journey Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia
(Acts xiii., xiv.);
52,
Conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Galatians ii.);
52-55,
Second missionary journey
Epistles to the Thessalonians (from Corinth).
Second Period
The Great Conflicts, and the Great Epistles:
54,
Return to Antioch
Controversy with Peter (Gal. ii. 12-22);
55-57,
Mission to Ephesus and Asia;
56,
Epistle to the Galatians;
57 or 58 (Passover),
First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Ephesus);
57 or 58 (Autumn),
Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
(Macedonia);
58 (Winter),
Epistle to the Romans.
Third Period
The Captivity:
58 or 59 (Pentecost),
Paul is arrested at Jerusalem;
58-60, or 59-61,
Captivity at Cæsarea
Epistles to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians;
60 or 61 (Autumn),
Departure for Rome;
61 or 62 (Spring),
Arrival of Paul in Rome;
62-63,
Epistle to the Philippians;
63 or 64,
End of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles."
A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, pages 21-22.
"The impression that we get from Acts is, that the
evangelisation of Asia Minor originated from St. Paul; and
that from his initiative the new religion gradually spread
over the country through the action of many other missionaries
(Acts xix. 10). Moreover, missionaries not trained by him,
were at work in South Galatia and in Ephesus as early as 54-56
A. D. (Gal. volume 7-10; Acts xviii. 25). ... The Christian Church
in Asia Minor was always opposed to the primitive native
character. It was Christianity, and not the Imperial
government, which finally destroyed the native languages, and
made Greek the universal language of Asia Minor. The new
religion was strong in the towns before it had any hold of the
country parts. The ruder and the less civilised any district
was, the slower was Christianity in permeating it.
Christianity in the early centuries was the religion of the
more advanced, not of the 'barbarian' peoples; and in fact it
seems to be nearly confined within the limits of the Roman
world, and practically to take little thought of any people
beyond, though in theory, 'Barbarian and Scythian' are
included in it. ... The First Epistle of John was in all
probability 'addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic
Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre.'"
W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,
pages 284, 44, 303.
{438}
"Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the
traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that
the latest years of the Apostle St. John were spent in the
Roman province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital.
This tradition is singularly full, consistent and
well-authenticated. Here he gathered disciples about him,
organized churches, appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole
chorus of voices unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One
who passed his earlier life in these parts and had heard his
aged master, a disciple of St. John himself, recount his
personal reminiscences of the great Apostle; another, who held
this very see of Ephesus, and writing less than a century
after the Apostle's death was linked with the past by a chain
of relatives all bishops in the Christian Church; a third who
also flourished about the close of the century and numbered
among his teachers an old man from this very district--are the
principal, because the most distinct; witnesses to a fact
which is implied in several other notices of earlier or
contemporary writers. As to the time at which St. John left
his original home and settled in this new abode no direct
account is preserved; but a very probable conjecture may be
hazarded. The impending fall of the Holy City was the signal
for the dispersion of the followers of Christ. About this same
time the three other great Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul and
St. James, died a martyr's death; and on St. John, the lust
surviving of the four great pillars of the Church, devolved
the work of developing the theology of the Gospel and
completing the organization of the Church. It was not
unnatural that at such a crisis he should fix his residence in
the centre of a large and growing Christian community, which
had been planted by the Apostle of the Gentiles, and watered
by the Apostle of the Circumcision. The missionary labours of
St. Paul and St. Peter in Asia Minor were confirmed and
extended by the prolonged residence of their younger
contemporary. At all events such evidence as we possess is
favourable to this view of the date of St. John's settlement
at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the work of the
beloved Apostle, and accepting the view which assigns it to
the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find him now for
the first time in the immediate neighbourhood of Asia Minor
and in direct communication with Ephesus and the neighbouring
Churches. St. John however was not alone. Whether drawn
thither by the attraction of his presence or acting in
pursuance of some common agreement, the few surviving personal
disciples of the Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as
their permanent abode, or at all events as their recognised
headquarters. Here at least we meet with the friend of St.
John's youth and perhaps his fellow-townsman, Andrew of
Bethsaida, who with him had first listened to John the
Baptist, and with him also had been the earliest to recognise
Jesus as the Christ. Here too we encounter Philip the
Evangelist with his daughters, and perhaps also Philip of
Bethsaida, the Apostle. Here also was settled the Apostle's
namesake, John the Presbyter, also a personal disciple of
Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise known to us, who
likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly also other Apostles
whose traditions Papias recorded [see J. B. Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers, page 527], Matthew and Thomas and James,
may have had some connexion, temporary or permanent, with this
district. Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the
Lord, by bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by
the pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for
instruction, St. John was the focus of a large and active
society of believers. In this respect he holds a unique
position among the great teachers of the new faith. St. Peter
and St. Paul converted disciples and organized congregations;
St. John alone was the centre of a school. His life prolonged
till the close of the century, when the Church was firmly
rooted and widely extended, combined with his fixed abode in
the centre of an established community to give a certain
definiteness to his personal influence which would be wanting
to the wider labours of these strictly missionary preachers.
Hence the notices of St. John have a more solid basis and
claim greater attention than stories relating to the other
Apostles."
J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pages 51-53.
"In the parable of Jesus, of which we are speaking, it is said
that 'the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself;'--that is,
to transfer the Greek term into English, 'automatically.' That
epithet is chosen which denotes most precisely a self-acting,
spontaneous energy, inherent in the seed which Jesus, through
his discourses, his acts of mercy and power, and his patience
unto death, was sowing in the world. This grand prophetic
declaration, uttered in a figure so simple and beautiful, in
the ears of a little company of Galileans, was to be
wonderfully verified in the coming ages of Christian history."
G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, page 47.
CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.
"Plutarch looked upon it as the great mission of Alexander to
transplant Grecian culture into distant countries, and to
conciliate Greeks and barbarians, and to fuse them into one.
He says of him, not without reason, that he was sent of God
for this purpose; though the historian did not divine that
this end itself was only subsidiary to, and the means of, one
still higher--the making, viz., the united peoples of the East
and West more accessible to the new creation which was to
proceed from Christianity, and by the combination of the
elements of Oriental and Hellenic culture the preparing for
Christianity a material in which it might develop itself. If
we overlook this ulterior end, and do not fix our regards on
the higher quickening spirit destined to reanimate, for some
new end, that combination which already bore within itself a
germ of corruption, we might well doubt whether that union was
really a gain to either party; whether, at least, it was not
everywhere attended with a correspondent loss. For the fresh
vigour which it infused into the old national spirit must have
been constantly repressed by the violence which the foreign
element did to it. To introduce into that combination a new
living principle of development, and, without prejudice to
their original essence, to unite peculiarities the most
diverse into a whole in which each part should be a complement
to the other, required something higher than any element of
human culture. The true living communion between the East and
the West, which should combine together the two peculiar
principles that were equally necessary for a complete
exhibition of the type of humanity, could first come only from
Christianity. But still, as preparatory thereto, the influence
which, for three centuries, went forth from Alexandria, that
centre of the intercourse of the world, was of great
importance."
A. Neander, General History of the
Christian Religion and Church, volume 1, introduction.
{439}
"The Greek version [of the Old Testament, the Septuagint],
like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in
the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the
Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we
find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of
the Pentateuch. But this, of course, could not suffice. On the
other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural
curiosity on the part of the students, specially in
Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish population, to know
the sacred books on which the religion and history of Israel
were founded. Even more than this, we must take into account
the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors
in Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour
which the Jews for a time enjoyed."
A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
volume 1, page 24.
CHRISTIANITY: Rome.
"Alongside of the province of Asia Minor, Rome very early
attains to an outstanding importance for young Christianity.
If, as we have supposed, the community here which emancipated
itself from the synagogue was mainly recruited from among the
proselyte circles which had formed themselves around the
Jewish synagogue, if Paul during the years of his captivity,
and Peter also, influenced this preponderatingly
Gentile-Christian community, we must, however, by no means
undervalue for the Christian community the continuous
influence of Judaism on the Roman world, an influence which
was not lessened but rather increased by the destruction of
Jerusalem. Many thousands of Jewish captives had arrived here
and been sold as slaves--Rome was the greatest Jewish city in
the Empire, ... and in part it was an enlightened and liberal
Judaism. Jewish Hellenism had already long availed itself of
the weapons of Hellenic philosophy and science ... in order to
exalt the Jewish faith. ... Under this stimulus there was ...
developed a proselytism which was indeed attracted by that
monotheism and the belief in providence and prophecy and the
moral ideas allied therewith, and which also had a strong
tendency to Jewish customs and festivals--especially the
keeping of the Sabbath--but which remained far from binding
itself to a strictly legal way of life in circumcision, etc.
We may suppose that Roman Christianity not only appeared in
the character of such a proselytism, but also retained from it
a certain Jewish colouring."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church:
A. D. 1-600, pages 83-84.
"The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic writings
seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church
and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in
the metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the
separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with
their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence
of St. Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and
influence of the more liberal and Catholic party; while the
Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in
making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes
to the law."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
page 94.
"Historical information of any certainty on the latter period
of Paul's life is entirely wanting. While the epistles require
this unknown period, and a second captivity, as a basis for
their apostolic origin, on the other hand, the hypothesis of a
second captivity scarcely finds any real foundations except in
the three Pastoral letters."
A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, page 269.
It only remains for us, returning to the close of the
apostle's life, to put together the slender indications that
we have of its date. He embarked for Rome in the autumn of 60
(or 61) A. D.; but was compelled by shipwreck to winter in the
island of Malta, and only reached the Eternal City in the
spring of 61 (62). Luke adds that he remained there as a
prisoner for two years, living in a private house under the
guard of a soldier; then his narrative breaks off abruptly,
and we are confronted with the unknown (Acts, xxviii. 30).
Paul is supposed to have perished in the frightful persecution
caused by the fire of Rome in July 64 A. D. All that is
certain is that he died a martyr at Rome under Nero
(Sabatier).
[The purpose of what follows in this article is to give a
brief history of Christianity in some of its relations to
general history by the method of this work, and in the light
of some of the best thought of our time. The article as a
combination of quotations from many authors attempts a
presentation of historic facts, and also a positive and
representative view, so far as this may be obtained under the
guidance of ideas common to many of the books used. Some of
these books have had more influence on the development of the
article than others: entire harmony and a full presentation of
any author's view would manifestly be impossible.
Nevertheless, the reader may discover in the article
principles and elements of unity derived from the literature
and representing it. Unfortunately, one of the essential parts
of such a history must be omitted--biography.]
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.
The Period of Growth and Struggle.
"Christian belief, Christian morality, the Christian view of
the world, of which the church as a religious society and
institution is the focus, as fluid spiritual elements permeate
humanity as it becomes Christian, far beyond the sphere of the
church proper; while conversely the church is not assured
against the possibility that spiritual elements originally
alien to her may dominate and influence her in their turn. ...
In this living interaction the peculiar life of the church is
unfolded, in accordance with its internal principles of
formation, into an extraordinarily manifold and complicated
object of historical examination. ... For this purpose it is
necessary to elucidate the general historical movement of the
church by the relative separation of certain of its aspects,
without loosening the bond of unity."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church:
A. D. 1-600, pages 1-3.
"Such, in fact, has been the history of the Faith: a sad and
yet a glorious succession of battles, often hardly fought, and
sometimes indecisive, between the new life and the old life.
... The Christian victory of common life was wrought out in
silence and patience and nameless agonies. It was the victory
of the soldiers and not of the captains of Christ's army. But
in due time another conflict had to be sustained, not by the
masses, but by great men, the consequence and the completion
of that which had gone before. ... The discipline of action
precedes the effort of reason. ... So it came to pass that the
period during which this second conflict of the Faith was
waged was, roughly speaking, from the middle of the second
to the middle of the third century."
B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious
Thought in the West, pages 194-197.
{440}
"Philosophy went on its way among the higher classes, but laid
absolutely no hold on men at large. The reformation which it
wrought in a few elect spirits failed utterly to spread
downward to the mass of mankind. The poor were not touched by
it; society was not helped by it; its noblest men, and they
grew fewer and fewer, generation by generation, bewailed
bitterly the universal indifference. The schools dwindled into
a mere university system of culture; Christianity developed
into a religion for the civilised world. ... New ideas it had
in abundance, but new ideas were not the secret of its power.
The essential matter in the Gospel was that it was the history
of a Life. It was a tale of fact that all could understand,
that all could believe, that all could love. It differed
fundamentally from Philosophy, because it appealed not to
culture, but to life. ... It was the spell of substantial
facts, living facts, ... the spell of a loyalty to a personal
Lord; and those who have not mastered the difference between a
philosopher's speculations about life, and the actual record
of a life which, in all that makes life holy and beautiful,
transcended the philosopher's most pure and lofty dreams, have
not understood yet the rudiments of the reason why the Stoic
could not, while Christianity could and did, regenerate
society."
J. B. Brown, Stoics and Saints, pages 85-86.
The "period, from the accession of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161)
to the accession of Valerian (A. D. 253) was for the Gentile
world a period of unrest and exhaustion, of ferment and of
indecision. The time of great hopes and creative minds was
gone. The most conspicuous men were, with few exceptions,
busied with the past. ... Local beliefs had lost their power.
Even old Rome ceased to exercise an unquestioned moral
supremacy. Men strove to be cosmopolitan. They strove vaguely
after a unity in which the scattered elements of ancient
experience should be harmonized. The effect can be seen both
in the policy of statesmen and in the speculations of
philosophers, in Marcus Aurelius, or Alexander Severus, or
Decius, no less than in Plotinus or Porphyry. As a necessary
consequence, the teaching of the Bible accessible in Greek
began to attract serious attention among the heathen. The
assailants of Christianity, even if they affected contempt,
shewed that they were deeply moved by its doctrines. The
memorable saying of Numenius, 'What is Plato but Moses
speaking in the language of Athens?' shews at once the feeling
after spiritual sympathy which began to be entertained, and
the want of spiritual insight in the representatives of
Gentile thought."
B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious
Thought in the West, pages 196-197.
"To our minds it appears that the preparation of philosophy
for Christianity was complete. ... The time was ripe for that
movement of which Justin is the earliest [complete]
representative."
G. T. Purves, The Testimony of Justin Martyr,
page 135.
"The writing in defense of Christianity is called the apology,
and the writer an apologist. ... There were two classes of
apologists, the Greek and the Latin, according to the
territory which they occupied, and the language in which they
wrote. But there were further differences. The Greeks belonged
mostly to the second century, and their writings exhibited a
profound intimacy with the Greek philosophy. Some of them had
studied in the Greek schools, and entered the church only in
mature life. They endeavored to prove that Christianity was
the blossom of all that was valuable in every system. They
stood largely on the defensive. The Latins, on the other hand,
were aggressive. They lived mostly in the third century. ...
The principal Greek apologists [were] Aristo, Quadratus,
Aristides [A. D. 131], Justin [A. D. 160], Melito [A. D. 170],
Miltiades, Irenaeus, Athenagoras [A. D. 178], Tatian, Clement
of Alexandria [A. D. 200], Hippolytus, and Origen [A. D. 225]."
J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church,
page 33.
Lightfoot assigns to about A. D. 150 (?) the author of the
Epistle to Diognetus. "Times without number the defenders of
Christianity appeal to the great and advantageous change
wrought by the Gospel in all who embraced it. ... 'We who
hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their
different manners would not receive into our houses men of a
different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live
familiarly with them. We pray for our enemies, we endeavor to
persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the
beautiful precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become
partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from
God, the Ruler of all.' This distinction between Christians
and heathen, this consciousness of a complete change in
character and life, is nowhere more beautifully described than
in the noble epistle ... to Diognetus."
Gerhard Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with
Heathenism, page 166.
"For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind
either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell
not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some
different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of
life. ... But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and
barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native
customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life,
yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set
forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation.
They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners;
they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they
endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a
fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. ... Their
existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.
They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in
their own lives. They love all men and they are persecuted by
all. ... War is urged against them as aliens by the Jews, and
persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet
those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their
hostility."
J. B. Lightfoot, Translation of the Epistle to Diognetus
(The Apostolic Fathers, pages 505-506).
"These apologists rise against philosophy also, out of which
they themselves had arisen, in the full consciousness of their
faith open to all and not only to the cultured few, the
certainty of which, based upon revelation, cannot be replaced
by uncertain human wisdom, which, moreover, is
self-contradictory in its most important representatives. On
the other hand, they willingly recognise in the philosophy by
means of which they had themselves been educated, certain
elements of truth, which they partly derive from the
seed-corns of truth, which the divine Logos had scattered
among the heathen also, partly externally from a dependence of
Greek wisdom on the much older wisdom of the East, and
therefore from the use of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
To the reproach that they had deserted the religion which had
been handed down from their ancestors and thereby made sacred,
they oppose the right of recognised truth, the right of
freedom of conscience; religion becomes the peculiar affair of
personal conviction, against which methods of force do not
suffice: God is to be obeyed rather than man."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church:
A. D. 1-600, page 179.
{441}
"Such a morality, as Roman greatness was passing away, took
possession of the ground. Its beginnings were scarcely felt,
scarcely known of, in the vast movement of affairs in the
greatest of empires. By and by its presence, strangely
austere, strangely gentle, strangely tender, strangely
inflexible, began to be noticed. But its work was long only a
work of indirect preparation. Those whom it charmed, those
whom it opposed, those whom it tamed, knew not what was being
done for the generations which were to follow."
R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilization, page 159.
"The more spiritual and profound historians of the Church
recognize it as a manifestation of this divine life flowing
into human history. But this is true of the organized church
only with important qualifications. The life must manifest
itself in an organization; but the organization is neither the
only nor the complete exposition of the life. ... The life
which creates the organization penetrates and purifies also
the family and the state, renovates individuals, and blooms
and fructifies in Christian civilizations; and these are also
historical manifestations."
S. Harris, The Kingdom of Christ on Earth, page 87.
It was the great formative period of the world's new life, and
all streams tended to flow together. The influence of Greek
thought on Roman law had led, under the circumstances of Roman
commercial life, to the development of an ideal "jus gentium,"
a kind of natural law discovered by the reason. This
conception transformed the Roman law and brought it into touch
with the new sense of human relations. "It was by means of
this higher conception of equity which resulted from the
identification of the jus gentium with the jus naturale--that
the alliance between law and philosophy was really made
efficient."
W. C. Morey, Outlines from Roman Law, page 114.
"There were three agencies whose influence in working
simultaneously and successively at this identical task, the
developing and importing of the jus gentium, was decisive of
the ultimate result. These were the praetorian edict [which
reached its climax under the Republic and was completed under
Hadrian], Roman scientific jurisprudence [which developed its
greatest ability about A. D. 200] and imperial legislation."
R. Sohm, Institutes of Roman Law, page 46.
"The liberal policy of Rome gradually extended the privileges
of her citizenship till it included all her subjects; and
along with the 'Jus suffragii,' went of course the 'Jus
honorum.' Even under Augustus we find a Spaniard consul at
Rome; and under Galba an Egyptian is governor of Egypt. It is
not long before even the emperor himself is supplied by the
provinces. It is easy to comprehend therefore how the
provincials forgot the fatherland of their birth for the
fatherland of their citizenship. Once win the franchise, and
to great capacity was opened a great: career. The Roman Empire
came to be a homogeneous mass of privileged persons, largely
using the same language, aiming at the same type of
civilisation, equal among themselves, but all alike conscious
of their superiority to the surrounding barbarians."
W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial
Administration, page 37.
"As far as she could, Rome destroyed the individual genius of
nations; she seems to have rendered them unqualified for a
national existence. When the public life of the Empire ceased,
Italy, Gaul, and Spain were thus unable to become nations.
Their great historical existence did not commence until after
the arrival of the barbarians, and after several centuries of
experiments amid violence and calamity, But how does it happen
that the countries which Rome did not conquer, or did not long
have under her sway, now hold such a prominent place in the
world--that they exhibit so much originality and such complete
confidence in their future? Is it only because, having existed
a shorter time, they are entitled to a longer future? Or,
perchance, did Rome leave behind her certain habits of mind,
intellectual and moral qualities, which impede and limit
activity?"
E. Lavisse, Political History of Europe, page 6.
Patriotism was a considerable part of both the ancient
religion and the old morality. The empire weakened the former
and deeply injured the latter by conquest of the individual
states. It had little to offer in place of these except that
anomaly, the worship of the emperor; and a law and justice
administered by rulers who, to say the least, grew very rich.
"The feeling of pride in Roman citizenship ... became much
weaker as the citizenship was widened. ... Roman citizenship
included an ever growing proportion of the population in every
land round the Mediterranean, till at last it embraced the
whole Roman world. ... Christianity also created a religion
for the Empire, transcending all distinctions of nationality.
... The path of development for the Empire lay in accepting
the religion offered it to complete its organisation. Down to
the time of Hadrian there was a certain progress on the part
of the Empire towards a recognition of this necessity."
W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,
pages 373, 191-192.
The relations of the laws of the Empire to Christianity may be
briefly stated, but there are differences of opinion which
cannot be noted here: "A. D. 30 to 100, Christians treated as
a sect of the Jews and sharing in the general toleration
accorded to them. A. D. 100 to 250, Christians recognized, ...
and rendered liable to persecution: (1st) For treason and
impiety. (2nd) As belonging to illegal associations, but at
the same time protected in their capacity of members of
Friendly or Burial Societies of a kind allowed by the law. A.
D. 250 to 260, Christianity recognized as a formidable power
by the State. Commencement of an open struggle between
Christianity and the secular authority. ... The cemeteries of
the Christians now for the first time interfered with and
become places of hiding and secret assembly. A. D. 260 to 300,
Persecutions cease for a time, 40 years Peace for the Church.
Time of much prosperity when, as Eusebius writes, 'great
multitudes flocked to the religion of Christ.' A. D. 300 to
313, Last decisive struggle under Diocletian."
G. B. Brown, From Schola to Cathedral.
{442}
"The judges decided simply in accordance with the laws, and,
in the great majority of cases, did so coolly, calmly, without
passion, as men who were simply discharging their duty. ...
Not the priests, but the Emperors led the attack. ... It is
true the Christians never rebelled against the State. They
cannot be reproached with even the appearance of a
revolutionary spirit. Despised, persecuted, abused, they still
never revolted, but showed themselves everywhere obedient to
the laws, and ready to pay to the Emperors the honor which was
their due. Yet in one particular they could not obey, the
worship of idols, the strewing of incense to the Cæsar-god.
And in this one thing it was made evident that in Christianity
lay the germ of a wholly new political and social order. This
is the character of the conflict which we are now to review.
It is a contest of the spirit of Antiquity against that of
Christianity, of the ancient heathen order of the world
against the new Christian order. Ten persecutions are commonly
enumerated, viz., under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian,
Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximinus the Thracian,
Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. This traditional enumeration
is, however, very superficial, and leaves entirely
unrecognized the real course of the struggles. ... Though
times of relative tranquillity occurred, Christianity
remained, notwithstanding, a prohibited religion. This being
the case, the simple arrangement of the persecutions in a
series makes the impression that they were all of the same
character, while in fact the persecution under Nero was wholly
different from that under Trajan and his successors, and this
again varied essentially from those under Decius and
Diocletian. The first persecution which was really general and
systematically aimed at the suppression of the Church, was the
Decian [see ROME: A. D. 192-284]. That under Trajan and his
successors [see ROME: A. D. 96-138, 138-180, and 303-305]
consisted merely of more or less frequent processes against
individual Christians, in which the established methods of
trial were employed, and the existing laws were more or less
sharply used against them. Finally, the persecutions under
Nero and Domitian [see ROME: A. D. 64-68, and 70-96] were mere
outbreaks of personal cruelty and tyrannical caprice. ...
Christianity is the growing might; with the energy of youth it
looks the future in the face, and there sees victory beckoning
onward. And how changed are now its ideas of that triumph! The
earlier period had no thought of any victory but that which
Christ was to bring at his coming. ... But in the time of
Cyprian the hopes of the Christians are directed towards
another victory: they begin to grasp the idea that
Christianity will vanquish heathenism from within, and become
the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. ... It is true that
the Christians were still greatly in the minority. It is
generally assumed that they formed about one-twelfth of the
whole population in the East, and in the West about
one-fifteenth. Even this is perhaps too high an estimate. But
there were two things which gave a great importance to this
minority. First, that no single religion of the much divided
Heathenism had so many adherents as the Christian. Over
against the scattered forces of Heathenism, the Christians
formed a close phalanx; the Church was a compact and strongly
framed organization. Second, the Christians were massed in the
towns, while the rural population was almost exclusively
devoted to Heathenism. There existed in Antioch, for instance,
a Christian church of fifty thousand souls."
G. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with
Heathenism, book 2.
"The Encyclopedia of Missions" on the authority of the late
Professor R. D. Hitchcock states that there are on record "the
names of churches existing at this period [at the close of the
persecutions] in 525 cities: cities of Europe 188, of Asia
214, of Africa 123." (See Appendix D.) There were tendencies
at work in many of these against that toward general catholic
(universal) organization, but in suffering and sympathy the
Christian Churches formed a vast body of believers. "Such a
vast organisation of a perfectly new kind, with no analogy in
previously existing institutions, was naturally slow in
development. ... The critical stage was passed when the
destruction of Jerusalem annihilated all possibility of a
localised centre for Christianity, and made it clear that the
centralisation of the Church could reside only in an
idea--viz., a process of intercommunication, union and
brotherhood. It would be hardly possible to exaggerate the
share which frequent intercourse from a very early stage
between the separate congregations had in moulding the
development of the Church. Most of the documents in the New
Testament are products and monuments of this intercourse; all
attest in numberless details the vivid interest which the
scattered communities took in one another. From the first the
Christian idea was to annihilate the separation due to space,
and hold the most distant brother as near as the nearest. A
clear consciousness of the importance of this idea first
appears in the Pastoral Epistles, and is still stronger in
writings of A. D. 80-100. ... The close relations between
different congregations is brought into strong relief by the
circumstances disclosed in the letters of Ignatius: the
welcome extended everywhere to him; the loving messages sent
when he was writing to other churches; the deputations sent
from churches off his road to meet him and convoy him; the
rapidity with which news of his progress was sent round, so
that deputations from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles were
ready to visit him in Smyrna; the news from Antioch which
reached him in Troas, but which was unknown to him in Smyrna;
the directions which he gave to call a council of the church
in Smyrna, and send a messenger to congratulate the church in
Antioch; the knowledge that his fate is known to and is
engaging the efforts of the church in Rome."
W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,
pages 364-366.
"The fellowship ... thus strongly impressed by apostolic hands
on the infant Church, is never wholly lost sight of throughout
all the ages, and its permanent expression is found in the
synod, whether œcumenic, provincial, or diocesan. This becomes
fainter as we reach the age in which a presbyter, told off
from the body to a distinct parish, attains gradual isolation
from his brethren. But this comes some centuries later. ...
Everywhere, till that decline, the idea is that of a
brotherhood or corporate office, a unity of function pervaded
by an energy of brotherly love. ... It is no mere confluence
of units before distinct."
H. Hayman, Diocesan Synods
(Contemporary Review, October, 1882).
{443}
"It is the age when the New Testament writings begin to come
together to form a generally recognized canon. The opposition
too to the sovereign spirit of Montanist prophecy undoubtedly
increased the need for it. ... After the example of the
Gnostics, a beginning is also made with exegetical explanation
of New Testament writings; Melito with one on the Revelation
of John, a certain Heraclitus with one on the Apostles. ...
Finally, in this same opposition to the heretics, it is sought
to secure the agreement of the different churches with one
another, and in this relation importance is gained by the idea
of a universal (Catholic) Church. So-called catholic Epistles
of men of repute in the church to different communities are
highly regarded. As illustrations take those of Bishop
Dionysius of Corinth to Lacedæmon, Athens, Crete, Paphlagonia,
Pontus, Rome (Euseb. 4, 23)."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,
pages 183-184.
"This period [100-312] may be divided into the Post-Apostolic
Age which reaches down to the middle of the second century,
and the Age of the Old Catholic Church which ends with the
establishment of the Church under Constantine. ... The point
of transition from one Age to the other may be unhesitatingly
set down at A. D. 170. The following are the most important
data in regard thereto. The death about A. D. 165 of Justin
Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the
Post-Apostolic Age and forms also the transition to the Old
Catholic Age; and Irenaeus, flourishing somewhere about A. D.
170, who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides
these we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian
controversies about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of
Montanism from the universal Catholic Church was effected
about the year 170 by means of the synodal institution called
into existence for that purpose."
J. H. Kurtz, Church History, volume 1, page 70.
"If every church must so live in the world as to be a part of
its collective being, then it must always be construed in and
through the place and time in which it lives."
A. M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern
Theology.
"The Church of the first three centuries was never, except
perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal
condition. But yet during the ages of persecution, the Church
as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a
spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the
world-empire."
F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and The See of Rome,
page 153.
All the greater forces of the age, political and legal, and
commercial, aided those working within the church to create an
organic unity. "Speaking with some qualifications, the
patristic church was Greek, as the primitive church had been
Jewish, and the mediæval church was to be Latin. Its unity,
like that of the Greek nation, was federative; each church,
like each of the Grecian states, was a little commonwealth. As
the Greece which resisted the Persians was one, not by any
imperial organization, but by common ideas and a common love
of liberty, so the church of the fathers was one, not by any
organic connection, but by common thoughts and sympathies,
above all by a common loyalty to Christ. Naturally the
questions which agitated such a church were those which
concern the individual soul rather than society. Its members
made much of personal beliefs and speculative opinions; and so
long as the old free spirit lasted they allowed one another
large freedom of thought, only requiring that common instinct
of loyalty to Christ. Happily for the world, that free spirit
did not die out from the East for at least two centuries after
Paul had proclaimed the individual relationship of the soul to
God. ... The genius of the Greek expressing itself in thought,
of the Latin in ruling power, the Christianity which was to
the former a body of truth, became to the latter a system of
government."
G. A. Jackson, The Fathers of the Third Century,
pages 154-156.
The Apostolic ideal was set forth, and within a few
generations forgotten. The vision was only for a time and then
vanished. "The kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this
world, is not limited by the restrictions which fetter other
societies, political or religious. It is in the fullest sense
free, comprehensive, universal. ... It is most important that
we should keep this ideal definitely in view, and I have
therefore stated it as broadly as possible. Yet the broad
statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false
impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It
must be evident that no society of men could hold together
without officers, without rules, without institutions of any
kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this
universal law. The conception in short is strictly an ideal,
which we must ever hold before our eyes. ... Every member of
the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and,
as such, a priest of God. ... It will hardly be denied, I
think, by those who have studied the history of modern
civilization with attention, that this conception of the
Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the
emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of
artificial barriers between class and class, and in the
diffusion of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the
fetters of party or race; in short, that to it mainly must be
attributed the most important advantages which constitute the
superiority of modern societies over ancient. Consciously or
unconsciously, the idea of an universal priesthood, of the
religious equality of all men, which, though not untaught
before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has worked
and is working untold blessings in political institutions and
in social life. But the careful student will also observe that
this idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that
throughout the history of the Church it has been struggling
for recognition, at most times discerned in some of its
aspects but at all times wholly ignored in others; and that
therefore the actual results are a very inadequate measure of
its efficacy, if only it could assume due prominence and were
allowed free scope in action. ... It may be a general rule, it
may be under ordinary circumstances a practically universal
law, that the highest acts of congregational worship shall be
performed through the principal officers of the congregation.
But an emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter
must decide, The Christian ideal will then ... interpret our
duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priesthood will
overrule all special limitations. The layman will assume
functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained
minister."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,
pages 137-140, 237.
"No Church now existing is an exact counterpart of the
Apostolic Church. ... Allusions bear out the idea that the
Church at Corinth was as yet almost struetureless--little more
than an aggregate of individuals--with no bishop, presbyter or
deacon."
J. W. Cunningham, The Growth of the Church in its
Organization and Institutions, pages 73, 18.
{444}
"Some time before the middle of the second century heresy
began sadly to distract the Christian community; and to avoid
imminent danger of schism, it was deemed expedient in a few
great towns to arm the chairman of the eldership with
additional power. A modified form of prelacy was thus
introduced."
W. D. Killen, The Old Catholic Church, page 51.
Respecting the rise of the Episcopate as a distinct office
there is a difference of opinion among scholars,--some
holding that it was expressly ordained by the Apostles, others
that it arose quite independently of them; a third class think
that it was developed gradually out of the eldership, but not
without the sanction of one or more of the Apostles. "For the
Church is a catholic society, that is, a society belonging to
all nations and ages. As a catholic society it lacks the bonds
of the life of a city or a nation--local contiguity, common
language, common customs. We cannot then very well conceive
how its corporate continuity could have been maintained
otherwise than through some succession of persons such as,
bearing the apostolic commission for ministry, should be in
each generation the necessary centres of the Church's life."
C. Gore, The Mission of the Church, pages 10,11.
"Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal
cities of the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would
early occupy a not less wide area. ... The name of the
presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what must be said
of the term bishop? ... But these notices, besides
establishing the general prevalence of episcopacy, also throw
considerable light on its origin. They indicate that the
relation suggested by the history of the word 'bishop' and its
transference from the lower to the higher office is the true
solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the
presbytery. ... They seem to hint also that, so far as this
development was affected at all by national temper and
characteristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences
were more purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome,
and more rapid where an Oriental spirit predominated, as at
Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish
this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in
those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more
especially St. John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its
prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence or their
sanction."
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic
Age, pages 151, 190, 191.
"Since then in the constitution of the church two elements met
together--the aristocratic and the monarchical--it could not
fail to be the case that a conflict would ensue between them.
... These struggles between the presbyterial and episcopal
systems belong among the most important phenomena connected
with the process of the development of church life in the
third century. Many presbyters made a capricious use of their
power, hurtful to good discipline and order in the
communities."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, volume 1, section 2.
"As a rule Christianity would get a footing first in the
metropolis of its region. The lesser cities would be
evangelized by missions sent from thence; and so the suffragan
sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitan
see. The metropolitan bishop is the natural center of unity
for the bishops of the province. ... The bishops of the
metropolitan sees acquired certain rights which were delegated
to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most
important churches a certain order of precedence grew up which
corresponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which
those churches existed; and finally the churches which were
founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence."
F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome,
pages 11 and 18.
"The triumph of the episcopal system undoubtedly promoted
unity, order, and tranquillity. But, on the other hand, it was
unfavourable to the free development of the life of the
church; and while the latter promoted the formation of a
priesthood foreign to the essence of that development of the
kingdom of God which the New Testament sets forth, on the
other hand a revolution of sentiment which had already been
prepared--an altered view of the idea of the priesthood--had
no small influence on the development of the episcopal system.
Thus does this change of the original constitution of the
Christian communities stand intimately connected with another
and still more radical change,--the formation of a sacerdotal
caste in the Christian church. ... Out of the husk of Judaism
Christianity had evolved itself to freedom and
independence,--had stripped off the forms in which it first
sprang up, and within which the new spirit lay at first
concealed, until by its own inherent power it broke through
them. This development belonged more particularly to the
Pauline position, from which proceeded the form of the church
in the Gentile world. In the struggle with the Jewish elements
which opposed the free development of Christianity, this
principle had triumphantly made its way. In the churches of
pagan Christians the new creation stood forth completely
unfolded; but the Jewish principle, which had been vanquished,
pressed in once more from another quarter. Humanity was as yet
incapable of maintaining itself at the lofty position of pure
spiritual religion. The Jewish position was better adapted to
the mass, which needed first to be trained before it could
apprehend Christianity in its purity,--needed to be disabused
from paganism. Out of Christianity, now become independent, a
principle once more sprang forth akin to the principles of the
Old Testament,--a new outward shaping of the kingdom of God, a
new discipline of the law which one day was to serve for the
training of rude nations, a new tutorship for the spirit of
humanity, until it should arrive at the maturity of the
perfect manhood in Christ. This investiture of the Christian
spirit in a form nearly akin to the position arrived at in the
Old Testament, could not fail, after the fruitful principle
had once made its appearance, to unfold itself more and more,
and to bring to light one after another all the consequences
which it involved; but there also began with it a reaction of
the Christian consciousness as it yearned after freedom, which
was continually bursting forth anew in an endless variety of
appearances, until it attained its triumph at the
Reformation."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, volume 1, section 2, B.
{445}
"Though the forms of [pagan] religion had broken away, the
spirit of religion was still quick; it had even developed: the
sense of sin, an almost new phenomenon, began to invade
Society and Philosophy; and along with this, an almost
importunate craving after a revelation. The changed tone of
philosophy, the spread of mysticism, the rapid growth of
mystery-worship, the revived Platonism, are all articulate
expressions of this need. The old Philosophy begins not only
to preach but to pray: the new strives to catch the revealed
voice of God in the oracles of less unfaithful days. ... In
the teeth of an organised and concentrated despotism a new
society had grown up, self-supporting, self-regulated, a State
within the State. Calm and assured amid a world that hid its
fears only in blind excitement, free amid the servile,
sanguine amid the despairing, Christians lived with an object.
United in loyal fellowship by sacred pledges more binding than
the sacramentum of the soldier, welded together by a stringent
discipline, led by trained and tried commanders, the Church
had succeeded in attaining unity. It had proved itself able to
command self-devotion even to the death. It had not feared to
assimilate the choicest fruits of the choicest intellects of
East and West. ... Yet the centripetal forces were stronger;
Tertullian had died an heresiarch, and Origen but narrowly and
somewhat of grace escaped a like fate. If rent with schisms
and threatened with disintegration, the Church was still an
undivided whole."
G. H. Rendall, The Emperor Julian, Paganism and
Christianity, pages 21-22.
"The designation of the Universal Christian Church as Catholic
dates from the time of Irenaeus. ... At the beginning of this
age, the heretical as well as the non-heretical Ebionism may
be regarded as virtually suppressed, although some scanty
remnants of it might yet be found. The most brilliant period
of Gnosticism, too, ... was already passed. But in Manichæism
there appeared, during the second half of the third century, a
new peril of a no less threatening kind inspired by Parseeism
and Buddhism. ... With Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside of
Christianity as embodied in the Roman State, begins the war of
extermination against the Church that was ever more and more
extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility,
however, was not able to subdue the Church. ... During the
same time the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization
of the church was more fully developed by the introduction of
an order of Metropolitans, and then in the following period it
reached its climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of
Patriarchs, and in the institution of œcumenical Synods."
J. H. Kurtz, Church History, volume l, pages 72-73, to which
the reader is also referred for all periods of church
history.
See, also,
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church;
For biography,
W. Smith and H. Wace, A Dictionary of Christian
Biography.
"Missionary effort in this period was mainly directed to the
conversion of the heathen. On the ruins of Jerusalem,
Hadrian's colony of Ælia Capitolina was planted; so that even
there the Church, in its character and modes of worship, was a
Gentile community. Christianity was early carried to Edessa,
the capital of the small state of Osrhene, in Mesopotamia.
After the middle of the second century, the Church at Edessa
was sufficiently flourishing to count among its members the
king, Abgar Bar Manu. At about this time the gospel was
preached in Persia, Media, Parthia, and Bactria. We have
notices of churches in Arabia in the early part of the third
century. They were visited several times by Origen, the
celebrated Alexandrian Church teacher (185-254). In the middle
of the fourth century a missionary, Theophilus, of Diu, found
churches in India. In Egypt, Christianity made great progress,
especially at Alexandria, whence it spread to Cyrene and other
neighboring places. In upper Egypt, where the Coptic language
and the superstition of the people were obstacles in its path,
Christianity had, nevertheless, gained a foothold as early as
towards the close of the second century. At this time the
gospel had been planted in proconsular Africa, being conveyed
thither from Rome, and there was a flourishing church at
Carthage. In Gaul, where the Druidical system, with its
priesthood and sacrificial worship, was the religion of the
Celtic population, several churches were founded from Asia
Minor. At Lyons and Vienne there were strong churches in the
last quarter of the second century. At this time Irenæus,
Bishop of Lyons, speaks of the establishment of Christianity
in Germany, west of the Rhine, and Tertullian, the North
African presbyter, speaks of Christianity in Britain. The
fathers in the second century describe in glowing terms, and
not without rhetorical exaggeration, the rapid conquests of
the Gospel. The number of converts in the reign of Hadrian
must have been very large. Otherwise we cannot account for the
enthusiastic language of Justin Martyr respecting the
multitude of professing Christians. Tertullian writes in a
similar strain. Irenæus refers to Barbarians who have believed
without having a knowledge of letters, through oral teaching
merely."
G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,
pages 45-46.
CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.
"Christianity first began its activity in the country among
the Jewish and Greek population of the Delta, but gradually
also among the Egyptians proper (the Copts) as may be inferred
from the Coptic (Memphytic) translation of the New Testament
(third century). In the second century, Gnosticism [see
GNOSTICS], which had its chief seat here as well as in Syria,
and, secondly, towards the close of the century, the
Alexandrian Catechetical School, show the importance of this
centre of religious movement and Christian education."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 105.
"Never perhaps has the free statement of the Christian idea
had less prejudice to encounter than at Alexandria at the
close of the second century. Never has it more successfully
vindicated by argument its right to be the great interpreter
of the human spirit. The institutions of the great metropolis
were highly favourable to this result. The Museum, built by
the Ptolemies, was intended to be, and speedily became, the
centre of an intense intellectual life. The Serapeum, at the
other end of the town, rivalled it in beauty of architecture
and wealth of rare MSS. The Sebastion, reared in honour of
Augustus, was no unworthy companion to these two noble
establishments. In all three, splendid endowments and a rich
professoriate attracted the talent of the world. If the
ambition of a secured reputation drew many eminent men away to
Rome, the means of securing such eminence were mainly procured
at Alexandria. ... The Christian Church in this city rose to
the height of its grand opportunity. It entered the lists
without fear and without favour, and boldly proclaimed its
competence to satisfy the intellectual cravings of man.
Numbers of restless and inquiring spirits came from all parts
of the world, hoping to find a solution of the doubts that
perplexed them. And the Church, which had already brought
peace to the souls of the woman and the slave, now girded
herself to the harder task of convincing the trained
intelligence of the man of letters and the philosopher."
C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early
Christianity, book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).
{446}
"The question ... came up for decision towards the close of
the sub-apostolic age, as to what shape the Church was finally
to take. Two types were set before her to choose from--one the
Hebrew-Latin type, as we may call it, into which ... she
finally settled down; the other the Hellenist type of a Demos,
or commonwealth of free citizens, all equal, all alike kings
and priests unto God, and whose moral and spiritual growth was
left very much to the initiative of each member of the
community. In Alexandria, as the meeting-point of all
nationalities, and where Judaism itself had tried to set up a
new type of thought, eclectic between Hebraism and Hellenism,
and comprehending what was best in both, naturally enough
there grew up a Christian type of eclecticism corresponding to
that of Philo. ... Into this seething of rival sects and races
the Alexandrian school of catechists threw themselves, and
made a noble attempt to rescue the Church, the synagogue, and
the Stoics alike from the one bane common to all--the
dangerous delusion that the truth was for them, not they for
the truth. Setting out on the assumption that God's purpose
was the education of the whole human family, they saw in the
Logos doctrine of St. John the key to harmonise all truth,
whether of Christian sect, Hebrew synagogue, or Stoic
philosophy. ... To educate all men up to this standard seemed
to them the true ideal of the Church. True Gnosis was their
keynote; and the Gnostic, as Clemens loves to describe
himself, was to them the pattern philosopher and Christian in
one. They regarded, moreover, a discipline of at least three
years as imperative; it was the preliminary condition of
entrance into the Christian Church."
J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology
Contrasted, pages 37-38.
The two great Christian writers of Alexandria were Clement and
Origen. "The universal influence of Origen made itself felt in
the third century over the whole field of Greek theology. In
him, as it were, everything which had hitherto been striven
after in the Greek field of theology, had been gathered
together, so as, being collected here in a centre, to give an
impulse in the most various directions; hence also the further
development of theology in subsequent times is always
accustomed to link itself on to one side or the other of his
rich spiritual heritage. ... And while this involves that
Christianity is placed on friendly relations with the previous
philosophical development of the highest conceptions of God
and the world, yet on the other hand Christian truth also
appears conversely as the universal truth which gathers
together in itself all the hitherto isolated rays of divine
truth. ... In the great religious ferment of the time there
was further contained the tendency to seek similar religious
ideas amid the different mythological religious forms and to
mingle them syncretistically. This religious ferment was still
further increased by the original content of Christianity,
that mighty leaven, which announced a religion destined to the
redemption and perfecting of the world, and by this means a like
direction and tendency was imparted to various other religious
views likewise. The exciting and moving effect of Gnosticism
on the Church depended at the same time on the fact, that its
representatives practically apprehended Christianity in the
manner of the antique religious mysteries, and in so doing
sought to lean upon the Christian communities and make
themselves at home in them, according as their religious life
and usages seemed to invite them, and to establish in them a
community of the initiated and perfect; an endeavour which the
powerful ascetic tendency in the church exploited and
augmented in its own sense, and for which the institution of
prophecy, which was so highly respected and powerful in the
communities, afforded a handle. In this way the initiated were
able to make for themselves a basis in the community on which
they could depend, while the religio-philosophical
speculations, which are always intelligible only to a few, at
the same time propagated themselves and branched out
scholastically."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,
pages 215, 213, 130-131.
"At Alexandria, Basilides (A. D. 125) and Valentine exerted in
turn an extraordinary influence; the latter endeavored to
establish his school at Rome about the year 140. The Gnostics
of Syria professed a more open dualism than those of Egypt.
The Church of Antioch had to resist Saturnin, that of Edessa
to oppose Bordesanes and Tatian."
E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity;
The Martyrs and Apologists, page 135.
"There was something very imposing in those mighty systems,
which embraced heaven and earth. How plain and meagre in
comparison seemed simple Christianity! There was something
remarkably attractive in the breadth and liberality of
Gnosticism. It seemed completely to have reconciled
Christianity with culture. How narrow the Christian Church
appeared! Even noble souls might be captivated by the hope of
winning the world over to Christianity in this way. ... Over
against the mighty systems of the Gnostics, the Church stood,
in sober earnestness and childlike faith, on the simple
Christian doctrine of the Apostles. This was to be sought in
the churches founded by the apostles themselves, where they
had defined the faith in their preaching."
G. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with
Heathenism, book 2, chapter 3.
"Greek philosophy had joined hands with Jewish theosophy, and
the Church knew not where to look for help. So serious did the
danger seem, when it was assailed at once and from opposite
sides by Jewish and Greek types of Gnosticism, the one from
the monotheistic point of view impugning the Godhead, the
other for the Docetic side explaining away [us a spiritual
illusion] the manhood of Christ, that the Church, in despair
of beating error by mere apology, fell back on the method of
authority. The Church was the only safe keeper of the deposit
of sacred tradition; whoever impugned that tradition, let him
be put out of the communion of saints."
Reverend J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology
Contrasted, page 41.
{447}
"The interest, the meaning, of Gnosticism rest entirely upon
its ethical motive. It was an attempt, a serious attempt, to
fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that
spectral doubt, which is mostly crushed down by force--Can the
world as we know it have been made by God? 'Cease,' says
Basilides, 'from idle and curious variety, and let us rather
discuss the opinions, which even barbarians have held, on the
subject of good and evil.' 'I will say anything rather than
admit that Providence is wicked.' Valentinus describes in the
strain of an ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. 'I
durst not affirm,' he concludes, 'that God is the author of
all this.' So Tertullian says of Marcion, 'like many men of
our time, and especially the heretics, he is bewildered by the
question of evil.' They approach the problem from a
non-Christian point of view, and arrive therefore at a
non-Christian solution. ... Many of them, especially the later
sectaries, accepted the whole Christian Creed, but always with
reserve. The teaching of the Church thus became in their eyes
a popular exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or
Knowledge, which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from all but
the chosen few."
C. Bigg; The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,
pages 28-29.
CHRISTIANITY: Cæsarea.
"The chief points of interest in the history of the Church of
Cæsarea during this period are the residence of Origen there
(first between A. D. 215 and 219 and again after his final
departure from Alexandria in 231), the education of Eusebius,
the foundation of the great library by Pamphilus, and the
martyrdoms during the Diocletian persecution. Most of these
will come before us again in other connexions, but they
require mention here. It would be difficult to over-estimate
the effect of what they imply on the Church at large. Had the
work of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius at Cæsarea remained
unrecorded, there would be a huge blank in ecclesiastical
history, rendering much that is otherwise known scarcely
intelligible. Had that work never been done, the course of
ecclesiastical history would have been very different. In the
whole of the second and third centuries it would be difficult
to name two more influential Christians than Origen and
Eusebius; and Pamphilus laboured earnestly to preserve and
circulate the writings of the one and to facilitate those of
the other. It was from the libraries of Pamphilus at Cæsarea
and of Alexander at Jerusalem that Eusebius obtained most of
his material" for his "Ecclesiastical History," which has
preserved titles and quotations from many lost books of
exceeding value.
A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 3.
CHRISTIANITY: Edessa.
"Edessa (the modern Urfa) was from the beginning of the third
century one of the chief centres of Syrian Christian life and
theological study. For many years, amid the vicissitudes of
theological persecution, a series of flourishing theological
schools were maintained there, one of which (the 'Persian
school') is of great importance as the nursery of Nestorianism
in the extreme East. It was as bishop of Edessa, also, that
Jacob Baradæus organized the monophysite churches into that
Jacobite church of which he is the hero. From the scholars of
Edessa came many of the translations which carried Greek
thought to the East, and in the periods of exciting
controversy Edessa was within the range of the theological
movements that stirred Alexandria and Constantinople. The
'Chronicle of Edessa,' as it is called because the greater
number of its notices relate to Edessene affairs, is a brief
document in Syriac contained in a manuscript of six leaves in
the Vatican library. It is one of the most important
fundamental sources for the history of Edessa, contains a long
official narrative of the flood of A. D. 201, which is perhaps
the only existing monument of heathen Syriac literature, and
includes an excellent and very carefully dated list of the
bishops of Edessa from A. D. 313 to 543."
Andover Review, volume 19, page 374.
The Syriac Versions (of the Gospel) form a group of which
mention should undoubtedly be made. The Syriac versions of the
Bible (Old Testament) are among the most ancient remains of
the language, the Syriac and the Chaldee being the two
dialects of the Aramaean spoken in the North. Of versions of
the New Testament, "the 'Peshito' or the 'Simple,' though not
the oldest text, has been the longest known. ... The
'Curetonian' ... was discovered after its existence had been
for a long time suspected by sagacious scholars [but is not
much more than a series of fragments]. ... Cureton, Tregelles,
Alford, Ewald, Bleek, and others, believe this text to be
older than the Peshito [which speaks for the Greek text of the
second century, though its own date is doubtful]. ... Other
valuable Syriac versions are 'Philoxenian' ... and the
'Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary' ... a service-book with lessons
from the Gospels for Sundays and feast days throughout the
year ... written at Antioch in 1030 in a dialect similar to
that in use in Jerusalem and from a Greek text of great
antiquity." A recent discovery renders these facts and
statements of peculiar interests.
G. E. Merrill, The Story of the Manuscripts, chapter 10.
CHRISTIANITY: Rural Palestine.
"If Ebionism [see EBIONISM] was not primitive Christianity,
neither was it a creation of the second century. As an
organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we
may suppose, in the reign of Trajan: but as a sentiment, it
had been harboured within the Church from the very earliest
days. Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles,
soothed by the general practice of their church, not yet
forced into declaring themselves by the turn of events, though
scarcely tolerant of others, these Judaizers were tolerated
for a time themselves. The beginning of the second century was
a winnowing season in the Church of the Circumcision. ... It
is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of
Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement
in the neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large
accessions to their numbers from this sect, which thus
inoculated the Church with its peculiar views. It is at least
worthy of notice, that in a religious work emanating from this
school of Ebionites the 'true Gospel' is reported to have been
first propagated 'after the destruction of the holy place.'"
J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertation on the Apostolic Age,
pages 78-80.
{448}
CHRISTIANITY: Carthage.
"If the world is indebted to Rome for the organisation of the
Church, Rome is indebted to Carthage for the theory on which
that organisation is built. The career of Carthage as a
Christian centre exemplifies the strange vicissitudes of
history. The city which Rome in her jealousy had crushed,
which, not content with crushing, she had obliterated from the
face of the earth, had at the bidding of Rome's greatest son
risen from her ashes, and by her career almost verified the
poet's taunt that the greatness of Carthage was reared on the
ruin of Italy. For in truth the African capital was in all but
political power no unworthy rival of Rome. It had steadily
grown in commercial prosperity. Its site was so advantageous
as to invite, almost to compel, the influx of trade, which
ever spontaneously moves along the line of least resistance.
And the people were well able to turn this natural advantage
to account. A mixed nationality, in which the original Italian
immigration lent a steadying force to the native Punic and
kindred African elements that formed its basis, with its
intelligence enriched by large accessions of Greek settlers
from Cyrene and Alexandria--Carthage had developed in the
second century of our era into a community at once wealthy,
enterprising and ambitious. ... It was no longer in the sphere
of profane literature, but in her contributions to the cause
of Christianity and the spiritual armoury of the Church, that
the proud Queen of Africa was to win her second crown of fame.
... The names of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, at once
suggest the source from which Papal Rome drew the principles
of Church controversy, Church organisation, and Church
doctrine, which have consolidated her authority, and to some
extent justified her pretensions to rule the conscience of
Christendom."
C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early
Christianity, book 5, ell. 2 (volume 2).
"At the end of the second century the African Tertullian first
began to wrestle with the difficulties of the Latin language
in the endeavour to make it a vehicle for the expression of
Christian ideas. In reading his dogmatic writings the struggle
is so apparent that it seems as though we beheld a rider
endeavouring to discipline an unbroken steed. Tertullian's
doctrine is, however, still wholly Greek in substance, and
this continued to be the case in the church of the Latin
tongue until the end of the fourth century. Hilary, Ambrose,
even Jerome, are essentially interpreters of Greek philosophy
and theology to the Latin West. With Augustine learning begins
to assume a Latin form, partly original and
independent--partly, I say, for even later compositions are
abundantly interwoven with Greek elements and materials. Very
gradually from the writings of the African fathers of the
church does the specific Latin element come to occupy that
dominant position in Western Christendom, which soon, partly
from self-sufficient indifference, partly from ignorance, so
completely severed itself from Greek influences that the old
unity and harmony could never be restored. Still the Biblical
study of the Latins is, as a whole, a mere echo and copy of
Greek predecessors."
J. I. von Döllinger, Studies in European History,
pages 170-171.
From Carthage which was afterward the residence of "the
primate of all Africa ... the Christian faith soon
disseminated throughout Numidia, Mauritania and Getulia, which
is proved by the great number of bishops at two councils held
at Carthage in 256 and 308. At the latter there were 270
bishops, whose names are not given, but at the former were
bishops from (87) ... cities."
J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and
Statistics of the Church.
CHRISTIANITY: Rome.
"In the West, Rome remains and indeed becomes ever more and
more the 'sedes Apostolica,' by far the most important centre
where, alongside of the Roman element, there are to be found
elements streaming together from all points of the Empire.
Greek names, and the long lasting (still dominant in the
second century) maintenance of Greek as the written language
of Roman Christianity are here noteworthy. ... Rome was the
point of departure not only for Italy and the Western
Provinces, but without doubt also for Proconsular Africa,
where in turn Carthage becomes the centre of diffusion. ...
The diffusion in the Græco-Roman world as a whole goes first
to the more important towns and from these gradually over the
country. ... The instruments however of this mission are by no
means exclusively apostolic men, who pursue missions as their
calling; ... every Christian becomes a witness in his own
circle, and intercourse and trade bring Christians hither and
thither, and along with them their Christian faith."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, pages 105-107.
"It has been contended, and many still believe, that in
ancient Rome the doctrines of Christ found no proselytes,
except among the lower and poorer classes of citizens. ... The
gospel found its way also to the mansions of the masters, nay,
even to the palace of the Cæsars. The discoveries lately made
on this subject are startling, and constitute a new chapter in
the history of imperial Rome. ... A difficulty may arise in
the mind of the reader: how was it possible for these
magistrates, generals, consuls, officers, senators, and
governors of provinces, to attend to their duties without
performing acts of idolatry? ... The Roman emperors gave
plenty of liberty to the new religion from time to time; and
some of them, moved by a sort of religious syncretism, even
tried to ally it with the official worship of the empire, and
to place Christ and Jupiter on the steps of the same
'lararium.' ... We must not believe that the transformation of
Rome from a pagan into a Christian city was a sudden and
unexpected event, which took the world by surprise. It was the
natural result of the work of three centuries, brought to
maturity under Constantine by an inevitable reaction against
the violence of Diocletian's rule. It was not a revolution or
a conversion in the true sense of these words; it was the
official recognition of a state of things which had long
ceased to be a secret. The moral superiority of the new
doctrines over the old religions was so evident, so
overpowering, that the result of the struggle had been a
foregone conclusion since the age of the first apologists. The
revolution was an exceedingly mild one, the transformation
almost imperceptible. ... The transformation may be followed
stage by stage in both its moral and material aspect. There is
not a ruin of ancient Rome that does not bear evidence of the
great change. ... Rome possesses authentic remains of the
'houses of prayer' in which the gospel was first announced in
apostolic times. ... A very old tradition, confirmed by the
'Liber Pontificalis,' describes the modern church of S.
Pudentiana as having been once the private house of the same
Pudens who was baptized by the apostles, and who is mentioned
in the epistles of S. Paul. ... The connection of the house
with the apostolate of SS. Peter and Paul made it very popular
from the beginning. ... Remains of the house of Pudens were
found in 1870. They occupy a considerable area under the
neighboring houses. ...
{449}
Among the Roman churches whose origin can be traced to the
hall of meeting, besides those of Pudens and Prisca already
mentioned, the best preserved seems to be that built by
Demetrias at the third mile-stone of the Via Latina, near the
'painted tombs.'... The Christians took advantage of the
freedom accorded to funeral colleges, and associated
themselves for the same purpose, following as closely as
possible their rules concerning contributions, the erection of
lodges, the meetings, and the ... love feasts; and it was
largely through the adoption of these well-understood and
respected customs that they were enabled to hold their
meetings and keep together as a corporate body through the
stormy times of the second and third centuries. Two excellent
specimens of scholæ connected with Christian cemeteries and
with meetings of the faithful have come down to us, one above
the Catacombs of Callixtus, the other above those of Soter."
This formation of Christian communities into colleges is an
important fact, and connects these Christian societies with
one of the social institutions of the Empire which may have
influenced the church as an organization. "The experience
gained in twenty-five years of active exploration in ancient
Rome, both above and below ground, enables me to state that
every pagan building which was capable of giving shelter to a
congregation was transformed, at one time or another, into a
church or a chapel. ... From apostolic times to the
persecution of Domitian, the faithful were buried, separately
or collectively, in private tombs which did not have the
character of a Church institution. These early tombs, whether
above or below ground, display a sense of perfect security,
and an absence of all fear or solicitude. This feeling arose
from two facts: the small extent of the cemeteries, which
secured to them the rights of private property, and the
protection and freedom which the Jewish colony in Rome enjoyed
from time immemorial. ... From the time of the apostles to the
first persecution of Domitian, Christian tombs, whether above
or below ground, were built with perfect impunity and in
defiance of public opinion. We have been accustomed to
consider the catacombs of Rome as crypts plunged in total
darkness, and penetrating the bowels of the earth at
unfathomable depths. This is, in a certain measure, the case
with those catacombs, or sections of catacombs, which were
excavated in times of persecution; but not with those
belonging to the first century. The cemetery of these members
of Domitian's family who had embraced the gospel--such as
Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, Plautilla, Petronilla, and
others-reveals a bold example of publicity. ... How is it
possible to imagine that the primitive Church did not know the
place of the death of its two leading apostles? In default of
written testimony let us consult monumental evidence. There is
no event of the imperial age and of imperial Rome which is
attested by so many noble structures, all of which point to
the same conclusion,--the presence and execution of the
apostles in the capital of the empire."
R. Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome,
chapter 1, 3 and 7.
The Church at Rome "gave no illustrious teachers to ancient
Christianity. ... All the greatest questions were debated
elsewhere. ... By a sort of instinct of race, [it] occupied
itself far more with points of government and organization
than of speculation. Its central position, in the capital of
the empire, and its glorious memories, guaranteed to it a
growing authority."
E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: The
Martyrs and Apologists, page 41.
CHRISTIANITY: Gaul.
"Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of
the second century we have no certain information. It seems
fairly probable indeed that, when we read in the Apostolic age
of a mission of Crescens to 'Galatia' or 'Gaul,' the western
country is meant rather than the Asiatic settlement which bore
the same name; and, if so, this points to some relations with
St. Paul himself. But, even though this explanation should be
accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later tradition
indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is
impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies
these comparatively recent stories. The connection between the
southern parts of Gaul and the western districts of Asia Minor
had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul was indebted
for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like
Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six
centuries before the Christian era; and close relations appear
to have been maintained even to the latest times. During the
Roman period the people of Marseilles still spoke the Greek
language familiarly along with the vernacular Celtic of the
native population and the official Latin of the dominant
power. When therefore Christianity had established her
headquarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the
Gospel should flow in the same channels which already
conducted the civilization and the commerce of the Asiatic
Greeks westward. At all events, whatever we may think of the
antecedent probabilities, the fact itself can hardly be
disputed. In the year A. D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, a
severe persecution broke out on the banks of the Rhone in the
cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its extent
and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the
Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest
extant historical notice of Christianity in Gaul."
J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the work entitled Supernatural
Religion, pages 251-252.
"The Churches of proconsular Africa, of Spain, of Italy, and
of Southern Gaul constitute, at this period, the Western
Church, so different in its general type from the Eastern.
With the exception of Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons] and
Hippolytus [the first celebrated preacher of the West, of
Italy and, for a period, Lyons] who represent the oriental
element in Gaul and at Rome, the Western Fathers are broadly
distinguished from those of the East. ... They affirm rather
than demonstrate; ... they prefer practical to speculative
questions. The system of episcopal authority is gradually
developed with a larger amount of passion at Carthage, with
greater prudence and patience in Italy."
E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: the
Martyrs and Apologists.
CHRISTIANITY: Spain.
"Christians are generally mentioned as having existed in all
parts of Spain at the close of the second century; before the
middle of the third century there is a letter of the Roman
bishop Anterus (in 237) to the bishops of the provinces of
Bœtica and Toletana; ... and after the middle of the same
century a letter of Cyprian's was addressed to ... people ...
in the north ... as well as ... in the south of that country."
J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and
Statistics of the Church, pages 40-41.
{450}
CHRISTIANITY: Britain.
"All that we can safely assert is that there is some reason
for believing that there were Christians in Britain before A.
D. 200. Certainly there was a British Church with bishops of
its own soon after A. D. 300, and possibly some time before
that. Very little can be known about this Celtic Church; but
the scanty evidence tends to establish three points, (1) It
had its origin from, and remained largely dependent upon, the
Gallic Church. (2) It was confined almost exclusively to Roman
settlements. (3) Its numbers were small and its members were
poor. ... That Britain may have derived its Christianity from
Asia Minor cannot be denied; but the peculiar British custom
respecting Easter must not be quoted in evidence of it. It
seems to have been a mere blunder, and not a continuation of
the old Quarta-deciman practice. Gaul is the more probable
parent of the British Church. ... At the Council of Rimini in
359 Constantius offered to pay out of the treasury the
travelling expenses of all the bishops who attended. Out of
more than four hundred bishops, three from Britain were the
only clergy who availed themselves of this offer. Neither at
Rimini, any more than at Arles, do the British representatives
make any show: they appear to be quite without influence."
A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 8.
CHRISTIANITY: Goths.
"It has been observed that the first indisputable appearance
of the Goths in European history must be dated in A. D. 238,
when they laid waste the South-Danubian province of Moesia as
far as the Black Sea. In the thirty years (238-269) that
followed, there took place no fewer than ten such inroads. ...
From these expeditions they returned with immense booty,--corn
and cattle, silks and fine linen, silver and gold, and
captives of all ranks and ages. It is to these captives, many
of whom were Christians, and not a few clergy, that the
introduction of Christianity among the Goths is primarily due.
... The period of the inroads, which so strangely formed a
sowing-time for Christianity, was followed by a long period of
tranquillity, during which the new faith took root and spread.
... It is to the faithful work and pure lives of [Christian]
men ... who had fled from Roman civilisation for conscience
sake, to the example of patience in misfortune and high
Christian character displayed by the captives, and to the
instruction of the presbyters sprinkled among them, that we
must look, as the source of Christianity among the Goths. ...
The fact (to which we shall have to refer later), that, of all
the sea raids undertaken by the Goths between the years 238
and 269, the Visigoths took part in only two, while the
Ostrogoths, who were settled in Southern Russia along the
coast of the Euxine from the Crimea to the Dneister, were
engaged probably in all of them, makes it very unlikely that
the captives mentioned by Philostorgius were carried anywhere
else than the eastern settlements. To the influence of these
Asian Christians, exerted mainly, if not entirely upon the
Ostrogoths, must be added the ever-increasing intercourse
carried on by sea between the Crimea and both the southern
shore of the Euxine and Constantinople. To these probabilities
has now to be added the fact that the only traces of an
organised Gothic Church existing before the year 341 are
clearly to be referred to a community in this neighbourhood.
Among the bishops who were present at the Council of Nicaea
(A. D. 325), and who signed the symbol which was then
approved, we find a certain Theophilus, before whose name
stand the words, 'de Gothis,' and after it the word
'Bosphoritanus.' There can be little doubt that this was a
bishop representing a Gothic Church on the Cimmerian
Bosphorus; and if, following the Paris MSS., we read further
down the list the name Domnus Bosphorensis or Bosphoranus, we
may find here another bishop from this diocese, and regard
Theophilus as chief or arch-bishop of the Crimean churches.
The undoubted presence at this council of at least one bishop
of the Goths, and the conclusion drawn therefrom in favour of
the orthodoxy of the Gothic Church in general, led afterwards
to the greatest confusion. Failing to distinguish between the
Crimean and Danubian communities, the historians often found
their information contradictory, and altered it in the
readiest way to suit the condition of the Church which they
had specially in view. ... The conversion of that section of
the nation, which became the Gothic Church, was due to the
apostolic labours of one of their own race,--the great
missionary bishop Ulfilas [see GOTHS: A. D. 341-381]. But to
him too was to be traced the heresy in which they stopped
short on the way from heathenism to a complete Christian
faith."
C. A. A. Scott, Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths, pages 19-30.
"The superstitions of the barbarians, who had found homes in
the empire, had been exchanged for a more wholesome belief.
But Christianity had done more than this. It had extended its
influence to the distant East and South, to Abyssinia, and the
tribes of the Syrian and Lybian deserts, to Armenia, Persia,
and India."
G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,
page 98.
"We have before us many significant examples of the facility
with which the most intelligent of the Pagans accepted the
outward rite of Christian baptism, and made a nominal
profession of the Faith, while they retained and openly
practiced, without rebuke, without remark, with the indulgence
even of genuine believers, the rites and usages of the
Paganism they pretended to have abjured. We find abundant
records of the fact that personages high in office, such as
consuls and other magistrates, while administering the laws by
which the old idolatries were proscribed, actually performed
Pagan rites and even erected public statues to Pagan
divinities. Still more did men, high in the respect of their
fellow-Christians, allow themselves to cherish sentiments
utterly at variance with the definitions of the Church."
C. Merivale, Four lectures on some Epochs of Early
Church History, page 150.
"We look back to the early acts and policy of the Church
towards the new nations, their kings and their people; the
ways and works of her missionaries and lawgivers, Ulfilas
among the Goths, Augustine in Kent, Remigius in France,
Boniface in Germany, Anschar in the North, the Irish Columban
in Burgundy and Switzerland, Benedict at Monte Cassino; or the
reforming kings, the Arian Theodoric, the great German
Charles, the great English Alfred. Measured by the light and
the standards they have helped us to attain to, their methods
no doubt surprise, disappoint--it may be, revolt us; and all
that we dwell upon is the childishness, or the imperfect
morality, of their attempts.
{451}
But if there is anything certain in history, it is
that in these rough communications of the deepest truths, in
these [for us] often questionable modes of ruling minds and
souls, the seeds were sown of all that was to make the hope
and the glory of the foremost nations. ... I have spoken of
three other groups of virtues which are held in special regard
and respect among us--those connected with manliness and hard
work, with reverence for law and liberty, and with pure family
life. The rudiments and tendencies out of which these have
grown appear to have been early marked in the German races;
but they were only rudiments, existing in company with much
wilder and stronger elements, and liable, amid the changes and
chances of barbarian existence, to be paralysed or trampled
out. No mere barbarian virtues could by themselves have stood
the trial of having won by conquest the wealth, the lands, the
power of Rome. But their guardian was there. What Christianity
did for these natural tendencies to good was to adopt them, to
watch over them, to discipline, to consolidate them. The
energy which warriors were accustomed to put forth in their
efforts to conquer, the missionaries and ministers of
Christianity exhibited in their enterprises of conversion and
teaching. The crowd of unknown saints whose names fill the
calendars, and live, some of them, only in the titles of our
churches, mainly represent the age of heroic spiritual
ventures, of which we see glimpses in the story of St.
Boniface, the apostle of Germany; of St. Columban and St.
Gall, wandering from Ireland to reclaim the barbarians of the
Burgundian deserts and of the shores of the Swiss lakes. It
was among men like these--men who were then termed
emphatically 'men of religion'--that the new races saw the
example of life ruled by a great and serious purpose, which
yet was not one of ambition or the excitement of war; a life
of deliberate and steady industry, of hard and uncomplaining
labour; a life as full of activity in peace, of stout and
brave work, as a warrior's was wont to be in the camp, on the
march, in the battle. It was in these men and in the
Christianity which they taught, and which inspired and
governed them, that the fathers of our modern nations first
saw exemplified the sense of human responsibility, first
learned the nobleness of a ruled and disciplined life, first
enlarged their thoughts of the uses of existence, first were
taught the dignity and sacredness of honest toil. These great
axioms of modern life passed silently from the special homes
of religious employment to those of civil; from the cloisters
and cells of men who, when they were not engaged in worship,
were engaged in field-work or book-work,--clearing the forest,
extending cultivation, multiplying manuscripts--to the guild
of the craftsman, the shop of the trader, the study of the
scholar. Religion generated and fed these ideas of what was
manly and worthy in man."
R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilisation,
pages 279-283.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.
The Church and the Empire.
"Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there
occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of
Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy.
It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor
to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous
importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman
empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church,
thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church
entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove
fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the
subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the
advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship
of earthly rulers and from a close connection with the civil
authority. Constantine was born in 274. He was the son of
Constantius Chlorus. His mother, Helena, was of obscure birth.
She became a Christian--whether before or after his
conversion, is doubtful. ... After the death of Constantine's
father, a revolt against Galerius augmented the number of
emperors, so that, in 308, not less than six claimed to
exercise rule. The contest of Constantine was at first in the
West, against the tyrannical and dissolute Maxentius. It was
just before his victory over this rival at the Milvian Bridge,
near Rome, that he adopted the Christian faith. That there
mingled in this decision, as in most of the steps of his
career, political ambition, is highly probable. The strength
of the Christian community made it politic for him to win its
united support. But he sincerely believed in the God whom the
Christians worshipped, and in the help which, through his
providence, he could lend to his servants. ... Shortly before
his victory over Maxentius there occurred what he asserted to
be the vision of a flaming cross in the sky, seen by him at
noonday, on which was the inscription, in Greek, 'By this
conquer.' It was, perhaps, an optical illusion, the effect of
a parhelion beheld in a moment when the imagination ... was
strongly excited. He adopted the labarum, or the standard of
the cross, which was afterwards carried in his armies. [See
ROME: A. D. 323.] In later contests with Licinius, the ruler
in the East, who was a defender of paganism, Constantine
became more distinctly the champion of the Christian cause.
The final defeat of Licinius, in 323, left him the master of
the whole Roman world. An edict signed by Galerius,
Constantine, and Licinius, in 311, had proclaimed freedom and
toleration in matters of religion. The edict of Milan, in 312,
emanating from the two latter, established unrestricted
liberty on this subject. If we consider the time when it was
issued, we shall be surprised to find that it alleges as a
motive for the edict the sacred rights of conscience."
G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,
pages 87-88.
"Towards the end of the year Constantine left Rome for Milan,
where he met Licinius. This meeting resulted in the issue of
the famous edict of Milan. Up to that hour Christianity had
been an 'illicita religio,' and it was a crime to be a
Christian. Even in Trajan's answer to Pliny this position is
assumed, though it forms the basis of humane regulations. The
edict of Milan is the charter of Christianity; it proclaims
absolute freedom in the matter of religion. Both Christians
and all others were to be freely permitted to follow
whatsoever religion each might choose. Moreover, restitution
was to be made to the Christian body of all churches and other
buildings which had been alienated from them during the persecution.
{452}
This was in 313 A. D. ... But the causes of dissension
remained behind. Once more (323) the question between paganism
and Christianity was to be tried on the field of battle, and
their armies confronted one another on the plains of
Hadrianople. Again the skill of Constantine and the trained
valour of his troops proved superior to the undisciplined
levies of Licinius; while at sea Crispus, the eldest and
ill-fated son of Constantine, destroyed the enemy's fleet in
the crowded waters of the Hellespont, sowing thereby the seeds
of his father's jealousy. Byzantium fell, but not without a
vigorous resistance; and, after one more crushing defeat on
the site of the modern Scutari, Licinius submitted himself to
the mercy of Constantine. ... What we notice in the whole of
these events is the enormous power which still belonged to
paganism. The balance still wavered between paganism and
Christianity. ... Constantine had now, by a marvellous
succession of victories, placed himself in a position of
supreme and undisputed power. At this juncture it is of
interest to observe that ... the divided empire, which
followed the reign of Constantine, served to sustain
Catholicity at least in one half of the world. ... The
foundation of Constantinople was the outward symbol of the new
monarchy and of the triumph of Christianity. ... The choice of
this incomparable position for the new capital of the world
remains the lasting proof of Constantine's genius. ... The
magnificence of its public buildings, its treasures of art,
its vast endowments, the beauty of its situation, the rapid
growth of its commerce, made it worthy to be 'as it were a
daughter of Rome herself.' But the most important thought for
us is the relation of Constantinople to the advance of
Christianity. That the city which had sprung into supremacy
from its birth and had become the capital of the conquered
world, should have excluded from the circuit of its walls all
public recognition of polytheism, and made the Cross its most
conspicuous ornament, and the token of its greatness, gave a
reality to the religious revolution. ... The imperial centre
of the world had been visibly displaced."
A. Carr, The Church and the Roman Empire, chapter 4.
With the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicæa,
A. D. 325 (see NICÆA), "the decisions ... of which received
the force of law from the confirmation of the Emperor, a
tendency was entered upon which was decisive for the further
development; decisive also by the fact that the Emperor held
it to be his duty to compel subordination to the decisions of
the council on penalty of banishment, and actually carried out
this banishment in the case of Arius and several of his
adherents. The Emperor summoned general synods, the fiscus
provided the cost of travel and subsistence (also at other
great synods), an imperial commissioner opened them by reading
the imperial edict, and watched over the course of business.
Only the bishops and their appointed representatives had
votes. Dogmatic points fixed ... were to be the outcome of
unanimous agreement, the rest of the ordinances (on the
constitution, discipline and worship) of a majority of votes."
W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 337.
"The direct influence of the emperor, however, does not appear
until the Emperor Marcian procured from the Council of
Chalcedon the completion of the Patriarchal system. Assuming
that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were Patriarchates by the
recognition of their privileges at the Council of Nicæa
(though the canon of that council does not really admit that
inference), the Council of Chalcedon, by its ninth,
seventeenth and twenty-eighth canons, enlarged and fixed the
patriarchal jurisdiction and privileges of the Church of
Constantinople, giving it authority over the Dioceses of
Thrace, Asia and Pontus, with the power of ordaining and
requiring canonical obedience from the metropolis of those
Dioceses, and also the right to adjudicate appeals in causes
ecclesiastical from the whole Eastern Church. The Bishop of
Jerusalem also obtained in this council patriarchal authority
over Palestine. The organization of the Church was thus
conformed to that of the empire, the patriarchs corresponding
to the Prætorian Prefects, the exarchs, to the governors of
the Dioceses, and the metropolitans to the governors of the
provinces--the Bishop of Rome being given by an edict of
Valentinian III., of the year 445, supreme appellate
jurisdiction in the West, and the Bishop of Constantinople, by
these canons of Chalcedon, supreme appellate jurisdiction in
the East. ... Dean Milman remarks that the Episcopate of St.
John Chrysostom was the last attempt of a bishop of
Constantinople to be independent of the political power, and
that his fate involved the freedom of the Church of that
city."
J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political, from
Constantine to the Reformation, pages 25-27.
"The name of patriarch, probably borrowed from Judaism, was
from this period the appellation of the highest dignitaries of
the church, and by it were more immediately, but not
exclusively, designated the bishops of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One patriarch accordingly
presided over several provinces, and was distinguished from
the metropolitan in this, that the latter was subordinate to
him, and had only the superintendence of one province or a
small district. However the designation applied only to the
highest rulers of the church in the east, and not to those in
the west, for here the title of patriarch was not unfrequently
given, even in later times, to the metropolitan. The first
mention of this title occurs in the second letter of the Roman
bishop, Anacletus at the beginning of the second century, and
it is next spoken of by Socrates; and after the Council of
Chalcedon, in 451, it came into general use. The bishop of
Constantinople bore the special title of œcumenical bishop or
patriarch; there were also other titles in use among the
Nestorians and Jacobites. The Primates and Metropolitans or
Archbishops arose contemporaneously. The title of Eparch is
also said to have been given to primates about the middle of
the fifth century. The metropolitan of Ephesus subscribed
himself thus in the year 680, therefore in the succeeding
period. There was no particular title of long continuance for
the Roman bishop until the sixth century; but from the year
536 he was usually called Papa, and from the time of Gregory
the Great he styled himself Servus Servorum Dei."
J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and
Statistics of the Church, pages 70, 71 and 72.
{453}
"Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial
throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period
the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the
Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity
almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the
change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a
dominant power in the state; and the change in the condition
of mankind up to this period, attributable to the direct
authority or indirect influence of the new religion. By
ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by advancing its
pretentions to influence the general government of mankind,
Christianity to a certain extent, forfeited its independence.
It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might
seem, with its own concurrent voice. It was no longer a
republic, governed exclusively--as far, at least, as its
religious concerns--by its own internal polity. The
interference of the civil power in some of its most private
affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even, in some
cases, the election of its bishops by the state, was the price
which it must inevitably pay for its association with the
ruling power. ... During the reign of Constantine Christianity
had made a rapid advance, no doubt, in the number of its
proselytes as well as in its external position. It was not yet
the established religion of the empire. It did not as yet
stand forward as the new religion adapted to the new order of
things, as a part of the great simultaneous change which gave
to the Roman world a new capital, a new system of government,
and, in some important instances, anew jurisprudence. ... The
religion of the emperor would soon become that of the court,
and, by somewhat slower degrees, that of the empire. At
present, however, as we have seen, little open aggression took
place upon paganism. The few temples which were closed were
insulated cases, and condemned as offensive to public
morality. In general the temples stood in all their former
majesty, for as yet the ordinary process of decay from neglect
or supineness could have produced little effect. The
difference was, that the Christian churches began to assume a
more stately and imposing form. In the new capital they
surpassed in grandeur, and probably in decoration, the pagan
temples, which belonged to old Byzantium. The immunities
granted to the Christian clergy only placed them on the same
level with the pagan priesthood. The pontifical offices were
still held by the distinguished men of the state: the emperor
himself was long the chief pontiff; but the religious office
had become a kind of appendage to the temporal dignity. The
Christian prelates were constantly admitted, in virtue of
their office, to the imperial presence."
H. H. Milman, History of Christianity, book 3, chapter 4.
"As early as Constantine's time the punishment of crucifixion
was abolished; immoral practices, like infanticide, and the
exhibition of gladiatorial shows, were discouraged, the latter
of these being forbidden in Constantinople; and in order to
improve the relation of the sexes, severe laws were passed
against adultery, and restrictions were placed on the facility
of divorce. Further, the bishops were empowered, in the name
of religion, to intercede with governors, and even with the
emperor, in behalf of the unfortunate and oppressed. And
gradually they obtained the right of exercising a sort of
moral superintendence over the discharge of their official
duties by the judges, and others, who belonged to their
communities. The supervision of the prisons, in particular,
was entrusted to them; and, whereas in the first instance
their power of interference was limited to exhortations
addressed to the judges who superintended them, in Justinian's
reign the bishops were commissioned by law to visit the
prisons on two days of each week in order to inquire into,
and, if necessary, report upon, the treatment of the
prisoners. In all these and many other ways, the influence of
the State in controlling and improving society was advanced by
its alliance with the Church."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire,
pages 56-57.
"The Christians were still a separate people. ... It can
scarcely be doubted that the stricter moral tone of
Constantine's legislation more or less remotely emanated from
Christianity. ... During the reign of Constantine Christianity
continued to advance beyond the borders of the Roman empire,
and in some degree to indemnify herself for the losses which
she sustained in the kingdom of Persia. The Ethiopians appear
to have attained some degree of civilization; a considerable
part of the Arabian commerce was kept up with the other side
of the Red Sea through the port of Adulis; and Greek letters
appear, from inscriptions recently discovered, to have made
considerable progress among this barbarous people. ... The
theological opinions of Christianity naturally made more rapid
progress than its moral influence. The former had only to
overpower the resistance of a religion which had already lost
its hold upon the mind, or a philosophy too speculative for
ordinary understandings and too unsatisfactory for the more
curious and inquiring; it had only to enter, as it were, into
a vacant place in the mind of man. But the moral influence had
to contest, not only with the natural dispositions of man, but
with the barbarism and depraved manners of ages. While, then,
the religion of the world underwent a total change, the Church
rose on the ruins of the temple, and the pontifical
establishment of paganism became gradually extinct or suffered
violent suppression; the moral revolution was far more slow
and far less complete. ... Everywhere there was exaggeration
of one of the constituent elements of Christianity; that
exaggeration which is the inevitable consequence of a strong
impulse upon the human mind. Wherever men feel strongly, they
act violently. The more speculative Christians, therefore, who
were more inclined, in the deep and somewhat selfish
solicitude for their own salvation, to isolate themselves from
the infected class of mankind, pressed into the extreme of
asceticism; the more practical, who were in earnest in the
desire of disseminating the blessings of religion throughout
society, scrupled little to press into their service whatever
might advance their cause. With both extremes the dogmatical
part of the religion predominated. ... In proportion to the
admitted importance of the creed, men became more sternly and
exclusively wedded to their opinions. ... While they swept in
converts indiscriminately from the palace and the public
street, while the emperor and the lowest of the populace were
alike admitted on little more than the open profession of
allegiance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this
respect was blind and complete. Hence a far larger admixture
of human passions, and the common vulgar incentives of action,
were infused into the expanding Christian body.
{454}
Men became Christians, orthodox Christians, with little
sacrifice of that which Christianity aimed chiefly to
extirpate. Yet, after all, this imperfect view of Christianity
had probably some effect in concentrating the Christian
community, and holding it together by a new and more
indissoluble bond. The world divided into two parties. ...
All, however, were enrolled under one or the other standard,
and the party which triumphed eventually would rule the whole
Christian world."
H. H. Milman, History of Christianity,
book 3, chapter 4-5.
"Of this deterioration of morals we have abundant evidence.
Read the Canons of the various Councils and you will learn
that the Church found it necessary to prohibit the commission
of the most heinous and abominable crimes not only by the
laity, but even by the clergy. Read the homilies of such
preachers as Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory, and you may infer
what the moral tone of a Christian congregation must have been
to which such reproofs could be addressed. Read, above all,
the treatise on Providence, or De Gubernatione Dei, written at
the close of our period by Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles.
The barbarians had over-spread the West, and Christians had
suffered so many hardships that they began to doubt whether
there was any Divine government of human affairs. Salvian
retorted that the fact of their suffering was the best
evidence of the doctrine of Providence, for the miseries they
endured were the effects of the Divine displeasure provoked by
the debauchery of the Church. And then he proceeds to draw up
an indictment and to lend proof which I prefer not to give in
detail. After making every allowance for rhetorical
exaggeration, enough remains to show that the morality of the
Church had grievously declined, and that the declension was
due to the inroads of Pagan vice. ... Under this head, had
space permitted, some account would have been given of the
growth of the Christian literature of this period, of the
great writers and preachers, and of the opposing schools of
interpretation which divided Christendom. In the Eastern
Church we should have had to notice [at greater length the
work of] Eusebius of Cæsarea, the father of Church History and
the friend of Constantine; Ephrem the Syrian, the
poet-preacher; the three Cappadocians, Basil of Cæsarea,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, each great in his
own way, the first as a preacher and administrator, the second
as a thinker, the third as a poet and panegyrist; Chrysostom,
the orator and exegete; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret
of Kyros, along with Chrysostom the most influential
representatives of the School of Antioch. In the Western
Church we should have had to speak of Ambrose, the eloquent
preacher and voluminous writer; of Jerome, the biblical
critic; and of Augustine, the philosopher and
controversialist, whose thoughts live among us even at the
present day."
W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St.
Giles' Lectures, 4th series).
See ROME: A. D. 323, to 391-395.
"Hitherto Christian asceticism had been individualistic in its
character. ... In the third century hermits began to form a
class by themselves in the East and in Africa; in the fourth
they began to be organized into communities. After the
institution of monastic societies, this development of
Christian asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts of
the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; Basil, Jerome, Athanasius,
Augustine, Ambrose, were foremost among its earliest advocates
and propagators; Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict, and others,
crowned the labours of their predecessors by a more elaborate
organization."
I. Gregory Smith, Christian Monasticism, pages 23-25.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 318-325.
The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.
See ARIANISM:
and NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL OF.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
The Eastern (Greek, or Orthodox) Church.
"'The Eastern Church,' says a well-known writer, 'was like the
East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West,
progressive and flexible. This distinction is the more
remarkable, because at certain periods of their course, there
can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church
was far higher than that of the Western.'"
G. F. Maclear, The Slavs, page 25.
It is the more remarkable because this long-continuing
uniformity, while peculiarly adapted to a people and a church
which should retain and transmit an inheritance of faith and
culture, stands in singular contrast to the reputed character
of the Greek-speaking peoples of the East. The word Greek,
however, has, as an adjective, many meanings, and there is
danger of wrong inference through inattention to these; some
of its distinctive characters are therefore indicated in
brackets in various places in the following matter. "The New
Rome at the time of its foundation was Roman. ... But from the
first it was destined to become Greek; for the Greeks, who now
began to call themselves Romans--an appellation which they
have ever since retained--held fast to their language,
manners, and prejudices, while they availed themselves to the
full of their rights as Roman citizens. The turning-point in
this respect was the separation of the empires of the East and
the West in the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and in
Justinian's time we find all the highest offices in the hands
of the Greeks, and Greek was the prevailing language. But the
people whom we call by this name were not the Hellenes of
Greece proper, but the Macedonian Greeks. This distinction
arose with the establishment of Greek colonies with municipal
government throughout Asia by Alexander the Great and his
successors. The type of character which was developed in them
and among those who were Hellenised by their influence,
differed in many respects from that of the old Greeks. The
resemblance between them was indeed maintained by similarity
of education and social feelings, by the possession of a
common language and literature, and by their exclusiveness,
which caused them to look down on less favoured races; but
while the inhabitants of Greece retained more of the
independent spirit and of the moral character and patriotism
of their forefathers, the Macedonian Greeks were more
cosmopolitan, more subservient, and more ready to take the
impress of those among whom they were thrown: and the
astuteness and versatility which at all times had formed one
element in the Hellenic character, in them became the leading
characteristic. The influence of this type is traceable in the
policy of the Eastern Empire, varying in intensity in
different ages in proportion to the power exercised by the
Greeks: until, during the later period of the history--in the
time of the Comneni, and still more in that of the
Palæologi--it is the predominant feature."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire,
pages 9-10.
{455}
"What have been the effects of Christianity on what we call
national character in Eastern Christendom? ... The Greeks of
the Lower Empire are taken as the typical example of these
races, and the Greeks of the Lower Empire have become a byword
for everything that is false and base. The Byzantine was
profoundly theological, we are told, and profoundly vile. ...
Those who wish to be just to [it] ... will pass ... to the ...
equitable and conscientious, but by no means, indulgent,
judgments of Mr. Finlay, Mr. Freeman, and Dean Stanley. One
fact alone is sufficient to engage our deep interest in this
race. It was Greeks [Hellenist Jews] and people imbued with
Greek ideas who first welcomed Christianity. It was in their
language that it first spoke to the world, and its first home
was in Greek households and in Greek cities. It was in Greek
[Hellenistic] atmosphere that the Divine Stranger from the
East, in many respects so widely different from all that
Greeks were accustomed to, first grew up to strength and
shape; first showed its power of assimilating and reconciling;
first showed what it was to be in human society. Its earliest
nurslings were Greeks; Greeks [Hellenist Jews] first took in
the meaning and measure of its amazing and eventful
announcements; Greek sympathies first awoke and vibrated to
its appeals; Greek obedience, Greek courage, Greek suffering
first illustrated its new lessons. Had it not first gained
over Greek mind and Greek belief, it is hard to see how it
would have made its further way. ... The Roman conquest of the
world found the Greek race, and the Eastern nations which it
had influenced, in a low and declining state--morally,
socially, politically. The Roman Empire, when it fell, left
them in the same discouraging condition, and suffering besides
from the degradation and mischief wrought on all its subjects
by its chronic and relentless fiscal oppression. ... These
were the men in whose childish conceit, childish frivolity,
childish self-assertion, St. Paul saw such dangers to the
growth of Christian manliness and to the unity of the
Christian body--the idly curious and gossiping men of Athens;
the vain and shamelessly ostentatious Corinthians, men in
intellect, but in moral seriousness babes; the Ephesians,
'like children carried away with every blast of vain
teaching,' the victims of every impostor, and sport of every
deceit; the Cretans, proverbially, 'ever liars, evil beasts,
slow bellies;' the passionate, volatile, Greek-speaking, Celts
of Asia, the 'foolish' Galatians. ... The Greek of the Roman
times is portrayed in the special warnings of the Apostolic
Epistles. After Apostolic times he is portrayed in the same
way by the heathen satirist Lucian, and by the Christian
preacher Chrysostom; and such, with all his bad tendencies,
aggravated by almost uninterrupted misrule and oppression, the
Empire, when it broke up, left him. The prospects of such a
people, amid the coming storms, were dark. Everything, their
gifts and versatility, as well as their faults, threatened
national decay and disintegration. ... These races whom the
Empire of the Cæsars left like scattered sheep to the mercy of
the barbarians, lived through a succession of the most
appalling storms, and kept themselves together, holding fast,
resolute and unwavering, amid all their miseries and all their
debasement, to the faith of their national brotherhood. ...
This, it seems to me, Christianity did for a race which had
apparently lived its time, and had no future before it--the
Greek race in the days of the Cæsars. It created in them, in a
new and characteristic degree, national endurance, national
fellowship and sympathy, national hope. ... It gave them an
Empire of their own, which, undervalued as it is by those
familiar with the ultimate results of Western history, yet
withstood the assaults before which, for the moment, Western
civilisation sank, and which had the strength to last a
life--a stirring and eventful life--of ten centuries. The
Greek Empire, with all its evils and weaknesses, was yet in
its time the only existing image in the world of a civilised
state. ... The lives of great men profoundly and permanently
influence national character; and the great men of later Greek
memory are saints. They belong to the people more than
emperors and warriors; for the Church is of the people. ...
The mark which such men left on Greek society and Greek
character has not been effaced to this day, even by the
melancholy examples of many degenerate successors. ... Why, if
Christianity affected Greek character so profoundly, did it
not do more? Why, if it cured it of much of its instability
and trifling, did it not also cure it of its falsehood and
dissimulation? Why, if it impressed the Greek mind so deeply
with the reality of the objects of faith, did it not also
check the vain inquisitiveness and spirit of disputatiousness
and sophistry, which filled Greek Church history with furious
wranglings about the most hopeless problems? Why, if it could
raise such admiration for unselfishness and heroic nobleness,
has not this admiration borne more congenial fruit? Why, if
heaven was felt to be so great and so near, was there in real
life such coarse and mean worldliness? Why, indeed? ...
Profoundly, permanently, as Christianity affected Greek
character, there was much in that character which Christianity
failed to reach, much that it failed to correct, much that was
obstinately refractory to influences which, elsewhere, were so
fruitful of goodness and greatness. The East, as well as the
West, has still much to learn from that religion, which each
too exclusively claims to understand, to appreciate, and to
defend."
R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilisation,
pages 188-216.
"The types of character that were developed in the Eastern
Church, as might be expected, were not of the very highest.
There was among them no St. Francis, no St. Louis. The
uniformity which pervades everything Byzantine prevented the
development of such salient characters as are found in the
West. It is difficult, no doubt, to form a true estimate of
the influence of religion on men's lives in Eastern countries,
just as it is of their domestic relations, and even of the
condition of the lower classes, because such matters are
steadily ignored by the contemporary historians. But all the
evidence tends to show that individual rather than heroic
piety was fostered by the system which prevailed there. That
at certain periods a high tone of spirituality prevailed among
certain classes is sufficiently proved by the beautiful hymns
of the Eastern Church, many of which, thanks to Dr. Neale's
singular felicity in translation, are in use among ourselves.
But the loftier development of their spirit took the form of
asceticism, and the scene of this was rather the secluded
monastery, or the pillar of the Stylite, than human society at
large. But if the Eastern Church did not rise as high as her
sister of the West, she never sank as low."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire,
pages 45-46.
{456}
"The Greek Church, or, as it calls itself, the Holy Orthodox,
Catholic, Apostolic, Oriental Church, has a venerable if not
an eventful history. Unlike the Church of the West, it has not
been moulded by great political movements, the rise and fall
of kingdoms, and the convulsions which have passed over the
face of modern society. Its course has been out of the sight
of European civilisation, it has grown up among peoples who
have been but slightly affected, if they have been affected at
all, by the progressive movements of mankind. It has no middle
ages. It has no renaissance. It has no Reformation. It has
given birth to no great universities and schools of learning.
It has no Protestantism. It remains very much as the fourth
and fifth centuries left it. ... When the royal throne in the
days of the first Christian Emperor was removed from Rome to
Constantinople, there arose at once a cause of strife between
the bishops of old and new Rome, as Byzantium or
Constantinople was named. Each claimed pre-eminence, and each
alternately received it from the governing powers, in Church
and State. One Council decreed (A. D. 381) that the Bishop of
the new Rome should be inferior only to that of the old;
another declared (A. D. 451) the equality of both prelates.
The Patriarch of Constantinople at the close of the sixth
century claimed superiority over all Christian Churches,--a
claim which might have developed, had circumstances favoured
it, into an Eastern Papacy. The assumption was, however, but
short-lived, and the Bishop of Rome, Boniface, obtained from
the Emperor Phocas in 606 the much-coveted position. The
Eastern Church submitted, but from this time looked with a
jealous eye on her Western sister. She noted and magnified
every point of divergence between them. Differences or
apparent differences in doctrine and ritual were denounced as
heresies. Excommunications fulminated between the Eastern and
Western city, and ecclesiastical bitterness was intensified by
political intrigue. ... In the ninth century the contest grew
very fierce. The holder of the Eastern see, Photius,
formulated and denounced the terrible doctrinal and other
defections of the Western prelate and his followers. The list
is very formidable. They, the followers of Rome, deemed it
proper to fast on the seventh day of the week--that is on the
Jewish Sabbath; in the first week of Lent they permitted the
use of milk and cheese; they disapproved wholly of the
marriage of priests; they thought none but bishops could
anoint with the holy oil or confirm the baptized, and that
they therefore anointed a second time those who had been
anointed by presbyters; and fifthly, they had adulterated the
Constantinopolitan Creed by adding to it the words Filioque,
thus teaching that the Holy Spirit did not proceed only from
the Father, but also from the Son. This last was deemed, and
has always been deemed by the Greek Church the great heresy of
the Roman Church. ... The Greek Church to-day in all its
branches--in Turkey, Greece, and Russia--professes to hold
firmly by the formulas and decisions of the seven Œcumenical
or General Councils, regarding with special honour that of
Nice. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are the symbols of its
faith, the Filioque clause being omitted from the former, and
the eighth article reading thus: 'And in the Holy Ghost, the
Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and
with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.'
... The Greek Church, unlike the Latin, denounces the use of
images as objects of devotion, and holds in abhorrence every
form of what it terms 'image worship.' Its position in this
manner is very curious. It is true, no figures of our Lord, of
the Virgin, or saints, such as one sees in churches, wayside
chapels, and in the open fields in countries where the Roman
Church is powerful, are to be seen in Russia, Greece, or any
of those lands where the Eastern Church is supreme. On the
other hand, pictures of the plainest kind everywhere take
their place, and are regarded with the deepest veneration."
J. C. Lees, The Greek Church, (in the Churches of
Christendom). lecture 4.
See, also,
FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 337-476.
The fall of Imperial Rome.
The rise of Ecclesiastical Rome.
The political and religious history of the Empire from the
death of Constantine is so fully narrated under Rome that mere
mention here of a few events will suffice, viz.: the revival
of Paganism under the Emperor Julian; the reascendency of
Christianity; the formal establishment of Christianity as the
religion of the Romans, by the suffrages of the senate; the
final division of the Empire into East and West between the
sons of Theodosius; the three sieges and the sacking of Rome
by Alaric; the legal separation of the Eastern and Western
Empires; the pillage of Rome by the Vandals and its final
submission to the barbarians.
See ROME: A. D. 337-361, to 445-476.
For an account of the early bishops of Rome, see PAPACY.
"A heathen historian traces the origin of the calamities which
he records to the abolition of sacrifice by Theodosius, and
the sack of Rome to the laws against the ancient faith passed
by his son. This objection of the heathens that the overthrow
of idolatry and the ascendency of Christianity were the cause
of the misfortunes of the empire was so wide spread, and had
such force with those, both Pagans and Christians, who
conceived history to be the outcome of magical or demonic
powers, that Augustine devoted twelve years of his life to its
refutation. His treatise, 'De Civitate Dei,' was begun in 413,
and was not finished till 426, within four years of his death.
Rome had once been taken; society, consumed by inward
corruption, was shaken to its foundations by the violent onset
of the Teutonic tribes; men's hearts were failing them for
fear; the voice of calumny cried aloud, and laid these woes to
the charge of the Christian faith. Augustine undertook to
refute the calumny, and to restore the courage of his
fellow-Christians. Taking a rapid survey of history, he asks
what the gods had ever done for the well-being of the state or
for public morality. He maintains that the greatness of Rome
in the past was due to the virtues of her sons, and not to the
protection of the gods. He shows that, long before the rise of
Christianity, her ruin had begun with the introduction of
foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage, and declares
that much in the ancient worship, instead of preventing, had
hastened that ruin. He rises above the troubles of the
present, and amid the vanishing glories of the city of men he
proclaims the stability of the city of God. At a time when the
downfall of Rome was thought to presage approaching doom,
Augustine regarded the disasters around him as the
birth-throes of a new world, as a necessary moment in the
onward movement of Christianity."
W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St.
Giles' Lectures, 4th series).
{457}
"There is as little ground for discovering a miraculous, as
there is for disowning a providential element in the course of
events. The institutions of Roman authority and law had been
planted regularly over all the territory which the conquering
hordes coveted and seized; alongside of every magistrate was
now placed a minister of Christ, and by every Hall of Justice
stood a House of Prayer. The Representative of Cæsar lost all
his power and dignity when the armies of Cæsar were scattered
in flight; the minister of Christ felt that behind him was an
invisible force with which the hosts of the alien could not
cope, and his behaviour impressed the barbarian with the
conviction that there was reality here. That beneficent
mission of Leo, A. D. 452, of which Gibbon says: 'The pressing
eloquence of Leo, his majestic aspect and sacerdotal robes,
excited the veneration of Attila for the spiritual father of
the Christians'--would be but an instance of what many
nameless priests from provincial towns did, 'not counting
their lives dear to them.' The organisation of the Latin state
vitalised by a new spiritual force vanquished the victors. It
was the method and the discipline of this organisation, not
the subtlety of its doctrine, nor the fervour of its
officials, that beat in detail one chief with his motley
following after another. Hence too it came about that the
Christianity which was adopted as the religion of Europe was
not modified to suit the tastes of the various tribes that
embraced it, but was delivered to each as from a common
fountain-head. ... It was a social triumph, proceeding from
religious motives which we may regard with unstinted
admiration and gratitude."
J. Watt, The Latin Church
(St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series.)
"The temporal fall of the Imperial metropolis tended to throw
a brighter light upon her ecclesiastical claims. The
separation of the East and the West had already enhanced the
religious dignity of the ancient capital. The great Eastern
patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had up to
that time all held themselves equal, if not superior to Rome.
Constantinople had even assumed certain airs of supremacy over
all. The General Councils which had defined the Faith at Nicæa
and Constantinople had been composed almost wholly of
Orientals. The great Doctors of the Church, the men who had
defended or diffused the common Faith, had been mostly Greeks
by origin and language. None had been Romans, and it was
rarely, till the fourth century, that any of them had written
in the Latin tongue. When Athanasius, exiled from Alexandria,
came to Italy and Gaul, it was three years before he could
learn enough of the language of the West to address its
congregations in public. But this curious fact shows that the
Western Christians were now no longer the little Greek colony
of the first and second centuries. Christianity had become the
national religion of the native races. The Romans might now
feel that they were becoming again a people; that their
glorious career was assuming, as it were, a new point of
departure. ... For at this moment the popular instinct could
not fail to perceive how strongly the conscience of the
barbarians had been affected by the spiritual majesty of
Christian Rome. The Northern hordes had beaten down all armed
resistance. They had made a deep impression upon the strength
of the Eastern Empire; they had, for a moment at least,
actually overcome the Western; they had overrun many of the
fairest provinces, and had effected a permanent lodgement in
Gaul and Spain, and still more recently in Africa. Yet in all
these countries, rude as they still were, they had submitted
to accept the creed of the Gospel. There was no such thing as
a barbarian Paganism established within the limits of the
Empire anywhere, except perhaps in furthest Britain."
C. Merivale, Four lectures on some Epochs of Early
Church History, pages 130-136.
"When the surging tides of barbarian invasion swept over
Europe, the Christian organization was almost the only
institution of the past which survived the flood. It remained
as a visible monument of what had been, and, by so remaining,
was of itself an antithesis to the present. The chief town of
the Roman province, whatever its status under barbarian rule,
was still the bishop's see. The limits of the old 'province,'
though the boundary of a new kingdom might bisect them, were
still the limits of his diocese. The bishop's tribunal was the
only tribunal in which the laws of the Empire could be pleaded
in their integrity. The bishop's dress was the ancient robe of
a Roman magistrate. The ancient Roman language which was used
in the Church services was a standing protest against the
growing degeneracy of the 'vulgar tongue.' ... As the forces
of the Empire became less and less, the forces of the Church
became more and more. The Churches preserved that which had
been from the first the secret of Imperial strength. For
underneath the Empire which changed and passed, beneath the
shifting pageantry of Emperors who moved across the stage and
were seen no more, was the abiding empire of law and
administration,--which changed only as the deep sea changes
beneath the windswept waves. That inner empire was continued
in the Christian Churches. In the years of transition from the
ancient to the modern world, when all civilized society seemed
to be disintegrated, the confederation of the Christian
Churches, by the very fact of its existence upon the old
imperial lines, was not only the most powerful, but the only
powerful organization in the civilized world. It was so vast,
and so powerful, that it seemed to be, and there were few to
question its being, the visible realization of that Kingdom of
God which our Lord Himself had preached."
E. Hatch; The Organization of the Christian Churches,
pages 160-178.
{458}
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 347-412.
The Syrian Churches.
"St. Chrysostom was born there A. D. 347; and it was in his
time that Antioch, with its hundred thousand Christians,
became the leading Church in Asia, especially in the Arian
controversy [see ARIANISM], for Arianism was very prevalent
there. But all this lies outside our period. The so-called
'School of Antioch' has its origin just before ... our period
[311, Wiltsch]. Dorotheus, ... and the martyr Lucian may be
regarded as its founders. In contrast to the allegorising
mysticism of the School of Alexandria, it was distinguished by
a more sober and critical interpretation of Scripture. It
looked to grammar and history for its principles of exegesis.
But we must not suppose that there was at Antioch an
educational establishment like the Catechetical School at
Alexandria, which, by a succession of great teachers, kept up
a traditional mode of exegesis and instruction. It was rather
an intellectual tendency which, beginning with Lucian and
Dorotheus, developed in a definite direction in Antioch and
other Syrian Churches. ... These notices of the Churches of
Jerusalem, Cæsarea in Palestine, and Antioch must suffice as
representative of the Syrian Churches. The number of these
Churches was considerable even in the second century, and by
the beginning of the fourth was very large indeed, as is seen
by the number of bishops who attend local Councils."
A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 3.
"It has often astonished me that no one has ever translated
the letters of St. Jerome. The letters of St. Augustine have
been translated, and are in many parts very entertaining
reading, but they are nothing in point of living interest when
compared with St. Jerome's. These letters illustrate life
about the year 400 as nothing else can. They show us, for
instance, what education then was, what clerical life
consisted in; they tell us of modes and fashions, and they
teach us how vigorous and constant was the communication at
that same period between the most distant parts of the Roman
empire. We are apt to think of the fifth century as a time
when there was very little travel, and when most certainly the
East and West--Ireland, England, Gaul and Palestine--were much
more widely and completely separated than now, when steam has
practically annihilated time and space. And yet such an idea
is very mistaken. There was a most lively intercourse existing
between these regions, a constant Church correspondence kept up
between them, and the most intense and vivid interest
maintained by the Gallic and Syrian churches in the minutest
details of their respective histories. Mark now how this
happened. St. Jerome at Bethlehem was the centre of this
intercourse. His position in the Christian world in the
beginning of the fifth century can only be compared to, but
was not at all equalled by, that of John Calvin at the time of
the Reformation. Men from the most distant parts consulted
him. Bishops of highest renown for sanctity and learning, like
St. Augustine, and Exuperius of Toulouse in southern France,
deferred to his authority. The keen interest he took in the
churches of Gaul, and the intimate knowledge he possessed of
the most petty local details and religious gossip therein, can
only be understood by one who has studied his very abusive
treatise against Vigilantius or his correspondence with
Exuperius. ... But how, it may be asked, was this
correspondence carried on when there was no postal system?
Here it was that the organization of monasticism supplied a
want. Jerome's letters tell us the very name of his postman.
He was a monk named Sysinnius. He was perpetually on the road
between Marseilles and Bethlehem. Again and again does Jerome
mention his coming and his going. His appearance must indeed
have been the great excitement of life at Bethlehem.
Travelling probably via Sardinia, Rome, Greece, and the
islands of the Adriatic, he gathered up all kinds of clerical
news on the way--a piece of conduct on his part which seems to
have had its usual results. As a tale-bearer, he not only
revealed secrets, but also separated chief friends, and this
monk Sysinnius with his gossips seems to have been the
original cause of the celebrated quarrel between Augustine and
Jerome."
G. T. Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church,
pages 170-172.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
The Frankish Church to the Empire of Charlemagne.
"The baptism of Chlodovech [Clovis--see FRANKS: A. D. 481-
511] was followed by the wholesale conversion of the Franks.
No compulsion was used to bring the heathen into the Church.
As a heathen, Chlodovech had treated the Church with
forbearance; he was equally tolerant to heathenism when he was
a Christian. But his example worked, and thousands of noble
Franks crowded to the water of regeneration. Gregory of Tours
reckons the Franks as Christians after the baptism of their
king, which took place at Christmas, A. D. 496. His conversion
made no alteration in the policy and conduct of Chlodovech; he
remained the same mixture of cunning and audacity, of cruelty
and sensuality, that he was before. ... But, though his
baptism was to him of no moral import, its consequences were
wide spreading. When Gregory of Tours compares the conversion
of Chlodovech with that of Constantine the Great, he was fully
in the right. ... And the baptism of Chlodovech declared to
the world that the new blood being poured into the veins of
the old and expiring civilization, had been quickened by the
same elements, and would unite with the old in the new
development. ... That many of those who were baptized carried
with them into their new Christianity their old heathen
superstitions as well as their barbarism is certain; and the
times were not those in which the growth of the great
Christian graces was encouraged; the germs, however, of a new
life were laid."
S. Baring-Gould, The Church in Germany, chapter 3.
"The details of the history of the Merovingian period of
Frankish history are extraordinarily complicated; happily, it
is not at all necessary for our purpose to follow them. ... In
the earlier years after the conquest, all ranks of the clergy
were filled by Gallo-Romans. The Franks were the dominant
race, and were Christian, but they were new converts from a
rude heathenism, and it would take some generations to raise
up a 'native ministry' among them. Not only the literature of
the (Western) Church, but all its services, and, still more,
the conversational intercourse of all civilized and Christian
people, was in Latin. Besides, the Franks were warriors, a
conquering caste, a separate nation; and to lay down the
battle-axe and spear, and enter into the peaceful ranks of the
Romano-Gallic Church, would have seemed to them like changing
their nationality for that of the more highly cultured,
perhaps, but, in their eyes, subject race. The Frank kings did
not ignore the value of education. Clovis is said to have
established a Palatine school, and encouraged his young men to
qualify themselves for the positions which his conquests had
opened out to them.
{459}
His grandsons, we have seen, prided themselves on
their Latin culture. After a while, Franks aspired to the
magnificent positions which the great sees of the Church
offered to their ambition; and we find men with Teutonic
names, and no doubt of Teutonic race, among the bishops. ...
For a still longer period, few Franks entered into the lower
ranks of the Church. Not only did the priesthood offer little
temptation to them, but also the policy of the kings and
nobles opposed the diminution of their military strength, by
refusing leave to their Franks to enter into holy orders or
into the monasteries. The cultured families of the cities
would afford an ample supply of men for the clergy, and
promising youths of a lower class seem already not
infrequently to have been educated for the service of the
Church. It was only in the later period, when some approach
had been made to a fusion of the races, that we find Franks
entering into the lower ranks of the Church, and
simultaneously we find Gallo-Romans in the ranks of the
armies. ... Monks wielded a powerful spiritual influence. But
the name of not a single priest appears in the history of the
times as exercising any influence or authority. ... Under the
gradual secularization of the Church in the Merovingian
period, the monasteries had the greatest share in keeping
alive a remnant of vital religion among the people; and in the
gradual decay of learning and art, the monastic institution
was the ark in which the ancient civilization survived the
deluge of barbarism, and emerged at length to spread itself
over the modern world."
E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapters 5 and 7.
"Two Anglo-Saxon monks, St. Wilfrid, bishop of York, and St.
Willibrord undertook the conversion of the savage fishermen of
Friesland and Holland at the end of the seventh and beginning
of the eighth century; they were followed by another
Englishman, the most renowned of all these missionaries,
Winfrith, whose name was changed to Boniface, perhaps by the
Pope, in recognition of his active and beneficent apostleship.
When Gregory II. appointed him bishop of Germany (723), he
went through Bavaria and established there the dioceses of
Frisingen, Passau, and Ratisbon. When Pope Zacharias bestowed
the rank of metropolitan upon the Church of Mainz in 748, he
entrusted its direction to St. Boniface, who from that time
was primate, as it were, of all Germany, under the authority
of the Holy See. St. Boniface was assassinated by the Pagans
of Friesland in 755."
V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, book 3, chapter 8.
"Boniface, whose original name was Winfrid, was of a noble
Devonshire family (A. D. 680), educated at the monastery of
Nutcelle, in Hampshire, and at the age of thirty-five years
had obtained a high reputation for learning and ability, when
(in A. D. 716), seized with the prevalent missionary
enthusiasm, he abandoned his prospects at home, and set out
with two companions to labour among the Frisians. ... Winfrid
was refused permission by the Duke to preach in his dominions,
and he returned home to England. In the following spring he
went to Rome, where he remained for some months, and then,
with a general authorization from the pope to preach the
gospel in Central Europe, he crossed the Alps, passed through
Bavaria into Thuringia, where he began his work. While here
the death of Radbod, A. D. 719, and the conquest of Frisia by
Charles Martel, opened up new prospects for the evangelization
of that country, and Boniface went thither and laboured for three
years among the missionaries, under Willibrord of Utrecht.
Then, following in the track of the victorious forces of
Charles Martel, he plunged into the wilds of Hessia, converted
two of its chiefs whose example was followed by multitudes of
the Hessians and Saxons, and a monastery arose at Amöneburg as
the head-quarters of the mission. The Bishop of Rome being
informed of this success, summoned Boniface to Rome, A. D.
723, and consecrated him a regionary bishop, with a general
jurisdiction over all whom he should win from paganism into
the Christian fold, requiring from him at the same time the
oath which was usually required of bishops within the
patriarchate of Rome, of obedience to the see. ... Boniface
was not only a zealous missionary, an earnest preacher, a
learned scholar, but he was a statesman and an able
administrator. He not only spread the Gospel among the
heathen, but he organized the Church among the newly converted
nations of Germany; he regulated the disorder which existed in
the Frankish Church, and established the relations between
Church and State on a settled basis. The mediæval analysts
tell us that Boniface crowned Pepin king, and modern writers
have usually reproduced the statement. 'Rettberg, and the able
writer of the biography of Boniface in Herzog (Real Ecyk, s.
v.), argue satisfactorily from Boniface's letters that he took
no part in Pepin's coronation.' When Boniface withdrew from
the active supervision of the Frankish Churches, it is
probable that his place was to some extent supplied in the
councils of the mayor and in the synods of the Church by
Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, a man whose character and
influence in the history of the Frank Church have hardly
hitherto been appreciated."
E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapter 12.
"Both Karlmann and Pippin tried to reform certain abuses that
had crept into the Church. Two councils, convoked by Karlmann,
the one in Germany (742), the other in the following year at
Lestines (near Charleroi, in Belgium), drew up decrees which
abolished superstitious rites and certain Pagan ceremonies,
still remaining in force; they also authorized grants of
Church lands by the 'Prince' for military purposes on
condition of a payment of an annual rent to the Church; they
reformed the ecclesiastical life, forbade the priests to hunt
or to ride through the woods with dogs, falcons, or
sparrow-hawks; and, finally, made all priests subordinate to
their diocesan bishops, to whom they were obliged to give
account each year of their faith and their ministry--all of
which were necessary provisions for the organization of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy and for the regulation of church
government. Similar measures were taken by the Council of
Soissons, convoked by Pippin in 744. In 747, Karlmann
renounced the world and retired to the celebrated Italian
monastery of Monte Cassino. As he left he entrusted his
children to the care of their uncle, Pippin, who robbed them
of their inheritance and ruled alone over the whole Frankish
Empire. ... Charlemagne enlarged and completed the work which
had only been begun by Charles Martel and Pippin. ... The
Middle Ages acknowledged two Masters, the Pope and the
Emperor, and these two powers came, the one from Rome, and the
other from Austrasian France. ... The mayors of Austrasia,
Pippin of Heristal, and Charles Martel, rebuilt the Frankish
monarchy and prepared the way for the empire of Charlemagne;
... the Roman pontiffs ... gathered around them all the
churches of the West, and placed themselves at the head of the
great Catholic society, over which one day Gregory VII. and
Innocent III. should claim to have sole dominion."
V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, pages 119-122, 108.
See MAYORS OF THE PALACE;
FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
and PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and 774.
{460}
The coronation of Charlemagne at Rome by Pope Leo III. (see
ROMAN EMPIRE, A. D. 800) gave the Western Church the place in
the state it had held under the earlier Roman emperors. The
character of so great a man, the very books he read and all
that fed the vigorous ideal element in so powerful a spirit
are worthy of interest; for this at least he sought to
accomplish--to give order to a tumultuous and barbarian
world, and to establish learning, and purify the church:
"While at table, he liked to hear a recital or a reading, and
it was histories and the great deeds of past times which were
usually read to him. He took great pleasure, also, in the
works of St. Augustine, and especially in that whose title is
'De Civitate Dei.' ... He practiced the Christian religion in
all its purity and with great fervour, whose principles had
been taught him from his infancy. ... He diligently attended
... church in the evening and morning, and even at night, to
assist at the offices and at the holy sacrifice, as much as
his health permitted him.' He watched with care that nothing
should be done but with the greatest propriety, constantly
ordering the guardians of the church not to allow anything to
be brought there or left there inconsistent with or unworthy
of the sanctity of the place. ... He was always ready to help
the poor, and it was not only in his own country, or within
his own dominions that he dispensed those gratuitous
liberalities which the Greeks call 'alms,' but beyond the
seas--in Syria, in Egypt, in Africa, at Jerusalem, at
Alexandria, at Carthage, everywhere where he learned that
Christians were living in poverty--he pitied their misery and
loved to send them money. If he sought with so much care the
friendship of foreign sovereigns, it was, above all, to
procure for the Christians living under their rule help and
relief. Of all the holy places, he had, above all, a great
veneration for the Church of the Apostle St. Peter at Rome."
Eginhard, Life of Charlemagne.
"The religious side of Charles' character is of the greatest
interest in the study of his remarkable character as a whole
and his religious policy led to the most important and durable
results of his reign. He inherited an ecclesiastical policy
from his father; the policy of regulating and strengthening
the influence of the Church in his dominions as the chief
agent of civilization, and a great means of binding the
various elements of the empire into one; the policy of
accepting the Bishop of Rome as the head of Western
Christianity, with patriarchal authority over all its
Churches."
E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapter 23.
The following is a noteworthy passage from Charlemagne's
Capitulary of 787: "It is our wish that you may be what it
behoves the soldiers of the church to be;--religious in
heart, learned in discourse, pure in act, eloquent in speech;
so that all who approach your house in order to invoke the
Divine Master, or to behold the excellence of the religious
life, may be edified in beholding you, and instructed in
hearing you discourse or chant, and may return home rendering
thanks to God most High. Fail not, as thou regardest our
favour, to send a copy of this letter to all thy suffragans
and to all the monasteries; and let no monk go beyond his
monastery to administer justice or to enter the assemblies and
the voting-places. Adieu."
J. B. Mullinger, The Schools of Charles the Great.
CHRISTIANITY: 5th-7th Centuries.
The Nestorian, Monophysite and Monothelite Controversies.
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE, and MONOTHELITE.
CHRISTIANITY: 5th-9th Centuries.
The Irish Church and its missions.
The story of the conversion of Ireland by St. Patrick, and of
the missionary labors of the Church which he founded, is
briefly told elsewhere.
See IRELAND: 5TH-8TH CENTURIES.
"The early Church worked her way, in the literal sense of the
word, 'underground,' under camp and palace, under senate and
forum. But turn where we will in these Celtic missions, we
notice how different were the features that marked them now.
In Dalaradia St. Patrick obtains the site of his earliest
church from the chieftain of the country, Dichu. At Tara, he
obtains from King Laoghaire a reluctant toleration of his
ministry. In Connaught he addresses himself first to the
chieftains of Tirawley, and in Munster baptizes Angus, the
king, at Cashel, the seat of the kings. What he did in Ireland
reproduces itself in the Celtic missions of Wales and
Scotland, and we cannot but take note of the important
influence of Welsh and Pictish chiefs. ... The people may not
have adopted the actual profession of Christianity, which was
all perhaps that in the first instance they adopted from any
clear or intelligent appreciation of its superiority to their
former religion. But to obtain from the people even an actual
profession of Christianity was an important step to ultimate
success. It secured toleration at least for Christian
institutions. It enabled the missionaries to plant in every
tribe their churches, schools, and monasteries, and to
establish among the half pagan inhabitants of the country
societies of holy men, whose devotion, usefulness, and piety
soon produced an effect on the most barbarous and savage
hearts.'"
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Celts,
chapter 11.
"The Medieval Church of the West found in the seventh century
an immense task before it to fulfil. ... The missionaries who
addressed themselves to the enormous task of the conversion of
Germany may be conveniently divided into three groups--the
British, the Frankish, and, entering somewhat later into an
honourable rivalry with these, the Anglo-Saxon. A word or two
upon each of these groups. The British--they include Irish and
Scotch--could no longer find a field for the exercise of their
ministry in England, now that there the Roman rule and
discipline, to which they were so little disposed to submit,
had everywhere won the day. Their own religious houses were
full to overflowing. At home there was little for them to do,
while yet that divine hunger and thirst for the winning of
souls, which had so possessed the heart of St. Patrick, lived
on in theirs. To these so minded, pagan Germany offered a welcome
field of labour, and one in which there was ample room for all.
{461}
Then there were the Frankish missionaries, who enjoyed the support
of the Frankish kings, which sometimes served them in good
stead; while at other times this protection was very far from
a recommendation in their eyes who were easily persuaded to
see in these missionaries the emissaries of a foe. Add to
these the Anglo-Saxons; these last, mindful of the source from
which they had received their own Christianity, making it a
point to attach their converts to Rome, even as they were
themselves bound to her by the closest ties. The language
which these spoke--a language which as yet can have diverged
very little from the Low German of Frisia, must have given to
them many facilities which the Frankish missionaries possessed
in a far slighter degree, the British not at all; and this may
help to account for a success on their parts far greater than
attended the labours of the others. To them too it was mainly
due that the battle of the Creeds, which had been fought and
lost by the Celtic missionaries in England, and was presently
renewed in Germany, had finally the same issues there as in
England. ... At the same time, there were differences in the
intensity and obstinacy of resistance to the message of truth,
which would be offered by different tribes. There was ground,
which at an early day had been won for the Gospel, but which
in the storms and confusion of the two preceding centuries had
been lost again; the whole line, that is, of the Danube and
the Rhine, regions fair and prosperous once, but in every
sense wildernesses now. In these we may note a readier
acceptance of the message than found place in lands which in
earlier times that message had never reached; as though
obscure reminiscences and traditions of the past, not wholly
extinct, had helped to set forward the present work."
R C. Trench, Lectures on Medieval Church History,
lecture 5.
"From Ireland came Gallus, Fridolin, Kilian, Trutbert and
Levin. ... The order in which these men succeeded one another
cannot always be established, from the uncertainty of the
accounts. ... We know thus much, that of all those
above-mentioned, Gallus was the first, for his labours in
Helvetia (Switzerland) were continued from the preceding into
the period of which we are now treating. On the other hand, it
is uncertain as to Fridolin whether he had not completed his
work before Gallus, in the sixth century, for in the opinion
of some he closed his career in the time of Clodoveus I., but,
according to others, he is said to have lived under Clodoveus
II., or at another period. His labours extended over the lands
on the Moselle, in the Vosges Mountains, over Helvetia, Rhætia
and Nigra Silva (the Black Forest). He built the monastery of
Sekkinga on the Rhine. Trutbert was a contemporary and at the
same time a countryman of Gallus. His sphere of action is said
to have been Brisgovia (Breisgau) and the Black Forest. Almost
half a century later Kilian proclaimed the gospel in Franconia
and Wirtzburg, with two assistants, Colonatus and Totnanus. In
the latter place they converted duke Gozbert, and were put to
death there in 688. After the above mentioned missionaries
from Ireland, in the seventh century, had built churches and
monasteries in the southern Germany, the missionaries from
Britain repaired with a similar purpose, to the northern
countries. ... Men from other nations, as Willericus, bishop
of Brema, preached in Transalbingia at the beginning of the
ninth century. Almost all the missionaries from the kingdom of
the Franks selected southern Germany as their sphere of
action: Emmeran, about 649, Ratisbona, Rudbert, about 696,
Bajoaria (Bavaria), Corbinian the country around Frisinga,
Otbert the Breisgau and Black Forest, and Pirminius the
Breisgau, Bajoaria, Franconia, Helvetia, and Alsatis."
J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and
Statistics of the Church, 11. 1, pages 365-367.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800.
The Western Church.
Rise of the Papacy.
"Though kindly treated, the Church of Rome did not make any
progress under the Ostrogoths. But when their power had been
broken (553), and Rome had been placed again under the
authority of the Emperor of Constantinople [see ROME: A. D.
535-553], the very remoteness of her new master insured to the
Church a more prosperous future. The invasion of the Lombards
drove a great many refugees into her territory, and the Roman
population showed a slight return of its old energy in its
double hatred toward them, as barbarians and as Arians. ... It
was at this favorable point in the state of affairs, though
critical in some respects, that Gregory the Great made his
appearance (590-604). He was a descendant of the noble Anicia
family, and added to his advantages of birth and position the
advantages of a well-endowed body and mind. He was prefect of
Rome when less than thirty years old, but after holding this
office a few months he abandoned the honors and cares of
worldly things for the retirement of the cloister. His
reputation did not allow him to remain in the obscurity of
that life. Toward 579 he was sent to Constantinople by Pope
Pelagius II. as secretary or papal nuncio, and he rendered
distinguished services to the Holy See in its relations with
the Empire and in its struggles against the Lombards. In 590
the clergy, the senate, and the people raised him with one
accord to the sovereign pontificate, to succeed Pelagius. As
it was still necessary for every election to be confirmed by
the Emperor at Constantinople, Gregory wrote to him to beg him
not to sanction this one; but the letter was intercepted and
soon orders arrived from Maurice ratifying the election.
Gregory hid himself, but he was discovered and led back to
Rome. When once Pope, though against his will, he used his
power to strengthen the papacy, to propagate Christianity, and
to improve the discipline and organization of the Church. ...
Strengthened thus by his own efforts, he undertook the
propagation of Christianity and orthodoxy both within and
without the limits of the old Roman Empire. Within those
limits there were still some who clung to paganism, in Sicily,
Sardinia, and even at the very gates of Rome, at Terracina,
and doubtless also in Gaul, as there is a constitution of
Childebert still extant dated 554, and entitled: 'For the
abolition of the remains of idolatry.' There were Arians very
near to Rome--namely, the Lombards; but through the
intervention of Theudalinda, their queen, Gregory succeeded in
having Adelwald, the heir to the throne, brought up in the
Catholic faith; as early as 587 the Visigoths in Spain, under
Reccared, were converted. ... The Roman Empire had perished,
and the barbarians had built upon its ruins many slight
structures that were soon overthrown.
{462}
Not even had the Franks, who were destined to be perpetuated
as a nation, as yet succeeded in founding a social state of
any strength; their lack of experience led them from one
attempt to another, all equally vain; even the attempt of
Charlemagne met with no more permanent success. In the midst
of these successive failures one institution alone, developing
slowly and steadily through the centuries, following out the
spirit of its principles, continued to grow and gain in power,
in extent and in unity. ... The Pope had now become, in truth,
the ruler of Christendom. He was, however, still a subject of
the Greek Emperor; but a rupture was inevitable, as his
authority, on the one hand, was growing day by day, and the
emperor's on the contrary, was declining."
V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages,
pages 114-115, 108-109, 117.
"The real power which advanced the credit of the Roman see
during these ages was the reaction against the Byzantine
despotism over the Eastern Church; and this is the explanation
of the fact that although the new map of Europe had been
marked out, in outline at least, by the year 500, the Roman
see clung to the eastern connection until the first half of
the eighth century. ... In the political or diplomatic
struggle between the Church and the Emperors, in which the
Emperors endeavored to make the Church subservient to the
imperial policy, or to adjust the situation to the necessities
of the empire, and the Church strove to retain its autonomy as
a witness to the faith and a legislator in the affairs of
religion, the Bishop of Rome became, so to speak, the
constitutional head of the opposition; and the East was
willing to exalt his authority, as a counterpoise to that of
the Emperor, to any extent short of acknowledging that the
primacy implied a supremacy."
J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political,
from Constantine to the Reformation, page 99.
"The election system was only used for one degree of the
ecclesiastical dignitaries, for the bishopric. The lower
dignitaries were chosen by the bishop. They were divided into
two categories of orders--the higher and the lower orders.
There were three higher orders, namely, the priests, the
deacons, and the sub-deacons, and four lower orders, the
acolytes, the door-keepers, the exorcists, and the readers.
The latter orders were not regarded as an integral part of the
clergy, as their members were the servants of the others. As
regards the territorial divisions, the bishop governed the
diocese, which at a much later date was divided into parishes,
whose spiritual welfare was in the hands of the parish priest
or curate (curio). The parishes, taken together, constituted
the diocese; the united dioceses, or suffragan bishoprics,
constituted the ecclesiastical province, at whose head stood
the metropolitan or archbishop. When a provincial council was
held, it met in the metropolis and was presided over by the
metropolitan. Above the metropolitans were the Patriarchs, in
the East, and the Primates in the West, bishops who held the
great capitals or the apostolic sees, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, Cesarea in Cappadocia,
Carthage in Africa, and Heraclius in Thrace; among them Rome
ranked higher by one degree, and from this supreme position
exercised a supreme authority acknowledged by all the Church."
V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, pages 109-110.
"The divergence of the two Churches, Eastern and Western, was
greater in reality than it appears to be from a superficial
view. It was based on essential variations in the character
and disposition of the people in the East and in the West, on
the nature of their civilization, and on the different, almost
antagonistic, development of the Christian idea in one Church
and in the other. ... The Eastern Church rejoiced in its
direct affiliation with apostolic times, in its careful
preservation of traditions, and was convinced of its especial
right to be considered the true heir and successor of Christ.
... The letter of the law superseded the spirit; religion
stiffened into formalism; piety consisted in strict observance
of ceremonial rites; external holiness replaced sincere and
heartfelt devotion. ... Throughout the West the tendency was
in a contrary direction--towards the practical application of
the religious idea. The effete, worn-out civilization of the
past was there renovated by contact and admixture with young
and vigorous races, and gained new strength and vitality in
the struggle for existence. The Church, freed from control,
became independent and self-asserting; the responsibility of
government, the preservation of social order, devolved upon
it, and it rose proudly to the task."
A. F. Heard, The Russian Church and Russian
Dissent, pages 6-10.
"On the overthrow of the Western Empire, and the
demonstration, rendered manifest to all, that with the
complete triumph of the new world of secular polities a new
spiritual development, a new phase of Divine guidance, was
opening, the conscience of the believers was aroused to a
sense of the sinfulness of their cowardly inactivity. 'Go ye
into all nations, and baptize them,' had been the last words
of their blessed Master. ... It is to this new or revived
missionary spirit which distinguished the sixth century, of
which I would place Pope Gregory the First, or the Great, as
the central figure, that I desire now to introduce you.
Remember that the Empire, which had represented the unity of
mankind, had become disintegrated and broken into fragments.
Men were no longer Romans, but Goths and Sueves, Burgundians
and Vandals, and beyond them Huns, Avars, Franks, and
Lombards, some with a slight tincture of Christian teaching,
but most with none. ... Let but the Gospel be proclaimed to
all, and leave the issue in God's hands! Such was the contrast
between the age of Leo and the age of Gregory! ... The
conversion of Clovis and the Franks is, I suppose, the
earliest instance of a Christian mission carried out on a
national scale by the common action of the Church represented
by the Pope and See of Rome. It becomes accordingly a great
historical event, deserving the earnest consideration not of
Churchmen only, but of all political enquirers."
C. Merivale, Four Lectures on some Epochs of Early
Church History, pages 172-177.
{463}
"Christianity thus renewed its ardor for proselytism, and
Gregory contributed to its success most wisely by enjoining
precepts of moderation upon his missionaries, and by the
skillful manner in which he made the transition to Catholicism
easy to the pagans; he wrote to Augustine: 'Be careful not to
destroy the pagan temples; it is only necessary to destroy the
idols, then to sprinkle the edifice with holy water, and to
build altars and place relics there. If the temples are well
built, it is a wise and useful thing for them to pass from the
worship of demons to the worship of the true God; for while
the nation sees its old places of worship still standing, it
will be the more ready to go there, by force of habit, to
worship the true God.' In the interior Gregory succeeded in
arranging the different degrees of power in the Church, and in
forcing the recognition of the supreme power of the Holy See.
We find him granting the title of Vicar of Gaul to the bishop
of Arles, and corresponding with Augustine, archbishop of
Canterbury, in regard to Great Britain, with the archbishop of
Seville in regard to Spain, with the archbishop of
Thessalonica in regard to Greece, and, finally, sending
legates 'a latere' to Constantinople. In his Pastoral, which
he wrote on the occasion of his election, and which became an
established precedent in the West, he prescribed to the
bishops their several duties, following the decisions of many
councils. He strengthened the hierarchy by preventing the
encroachments of the bishops upon one another: 'I have given
to you the spiritual direction of Britain,' he wrote to the
ambitious Augustine, 'and not that of the Gauls.' He
rearranged the monasteries, made discipline the object of his
vigilant care, reformed Church music, and substituted the
chant that bears his name for the Ambrosian chant, 'which
resembled,' according to a contemporary, 'the far-off noise of
a chariot rumbling over pebbles.' Rome, victorious again with
the help of Gregory the Great, continued to push her conquests
to distant countries after his death."
V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, page 116.
See,
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800,
and ROME: A. D. 590-640.
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 597-800.
The English Church.
"It seems right to add a word of caution against the common
confusion between the British Church and the English Church.
They were quite distinct, and had very little to do with one
another. To cite the British bishops at the Councils of Arles
and Rimini as evidence of the antiquity of the English Church
is preposterous. There was then no England; and the ancestors
of English Churchmen were heathen tribes on the continent. The
history of the Church of England begins with the episcopate of
Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668), or at the very earliest with
the landing of Augustine (A. D. 597). By that time the British
Church had been almost destroyed by the heathen English. ...
Bede tells us that down to his day the Britons still treated
English Christians as pagans."
A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 8.
"About the year 580, in the pontificate of Pelagius, Gregory
occupied the rank of a deacon among the Roman clergy. He was
early noted for his zeal and piety; coming into large
possessions, as an off-shoot of an ancient and noble family,
he had expended his wealth in the foundation of no less than
seven monasteries, and had become himself the abbot of one of
them, St. Andrew's, at Rome. Devoted as he was from the first
to all the good works to which the religious profession might
best apply itself, his attention was more particularly turned
to the cause of Christian missions by casually remarking a
troop of young slaves exhibited for sale in the Roman market.
Struck with the beauty or fresh complexion of these strangers,
he asked whether they were Christians or Pagans. They were
Pagans, it was replied. How sad, he exclaimed, that such fair
countenances should lie under the power of demons. 'Whence came
they?'--'From Anglia.'--'Truly they are Angels. What is the
name of their country?'--'Deira.'--'Truly they are subject to
the wrath of God: ira Dei. And their king?'--'Is named
Ælla.'--'Let them learn to sing Allelujah.' Britain had lately
fallen under the sway of the heathen Angles. Throughout the
eastern section of the island, the faith of Christ, which had
been established there from early times, had been, it seems,
utterly extirpated. The British church of Lucius and Albanus
still lingered, but was chiefly confined within the ruder
districts of Cornwall, Wales, and Cumbria. The reported
destruction of the people with all their churches, and all
their culture, begun by the Picts and Scots, and carried on by
the Angles and their kindred Saxons, had made a profound
impression upon Christendom. The 'Groans of the Britons' had
terrified all mankind, and discouraged even the brave
missionaries of Italy and Gaul. ... Gregory determined to make
the sacrifice himself. He prevailed on the Pope to sanction
his enterprise; but the people of Rome, with whom he was a
favourite, interposed, and he was constrained reluctantly to
forego the peril and the blessing. But the sight he had
witnessed in the market-place still retained its impression
upon him. He kept the fair-haired Angles ever in view; and
when, in the year 592, he was himself elevated to the popedom,
he resolved to send a mission, and fling upon the obscure
shores of Britain the full beams of the sun of Christendom, as
they then seemed to shine so conspicuously at Rome. Augustine
was the preacher chosen from among the inmates of one of
Gregory's monasteries, for the arduous task thus imposed upon
him. He was to be accompanied by a select band of twelve
monks, together with a certain number of attendants. ... There
is something very remarkable in the facility with which the
fierce idolaters, whose name had struck such terror into the
Christian nations far and near, yielded to the persuasions of
this band of peaceful evangelists."
C. Merivale, Four lectures on some Epochs of Early
Church History, pages 192-198.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
The Roman missionaries in England landed in Kent and appear to
have had more influence with the petty courts of the little
kingdoms than with the people. The conversion of the North of
England must be credited to the Irish monastery on the island
of Iona. "At the beginning of the sixth century these Irish
Christians were seized with an unconquerable impulse to wander
afar and preach Christianity to the heathen. In 563 Columba,
with twelve confederates, left Ireland and founded a monastery
on a small island off the coast of Scotland (Iona or Hy),
through the influence of which the Scots and Picts of Britain
became converted to Christianity, twenty-three missions among
the Scots and eighteen in the country of the Picts having been
established at the death of Columba (597). Under his third
successor the heathen Saxons were converted; Aedan, summoned
by Osward of Northumbria, having labored among them from 635
to 651 as missionary, abbot, and bishop. His successors,
Finnan and Colman, worthily carried on his work, and
introduced Christianity into other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms near
East Anglia, Mercia, and Essex."
H. Zimmer, The Irish Element in Mediæval Culture,
pages 19-21.
{464}
"Two bands of devoted men had hitherto been employed in the
conversion of England, the Roman, assisted by their converts
and some teachers from France, and the Irish, who were plainly
the larger body. Between the two there were the old
differences as to the time of keeping Easter and the form of
the clerical tonsure. ... Thus, while Oswy [King of Mercia]
was celebrating Easter according to the custom he had learnt
at Iona, his queen Earfleda observed it according to the rule
which she had learnt in Kent, and was still practising the
austerities of Lent. These differences were tolerated during
the Episcopate of Aidan and Finan, but when Finan died and was
succeeded by Colman, the controversy" was terminated by Oswy,
after much debate, with the words--"'I will hold to St. Peter,
lest, when I present myself at the gates of Heaven, he should
close them against me.' ... Colman, with all his Irish
brethren, and thirty Northumbrians who had joined the
monastery, quitted Lindisfarne and sailed to Iona."
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The English,
pages 81-85.
The impartial historian to whom we owe all the early history
of the English Church, thus records the memory of these
devoted men as it remained in the minds of Englishmen long
after their departure. It is a brief passage, one like those
in the greater Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which must
stand for much we do not know. Referring to their devoted
lives--"For this reason the religious habit was at that time
in great veneration; so that wheresoever any clergyman or monk
happened to come, he was joyfully received by all persons, as
God's servant; and if they chanced to meet him upon the way,
they ran to him, and bowing, were glad to be signed with his
hand, or blessed with his mouth. Great attention was also paid
to their exhortations; and on Sundays they flocked eagerly to
the church, or the monasteries, not to feed their bodies, but
to hear the word of God; and if any priest happened to come
into a village, the inhabitants flocked together to hear from
him the word of life; for the priests and clergymen went into
the village on no other account than to preach, baptize, visit
the sick, and, in few words, to take care of souls; and they
were so free from worldly avarice, that none of them received
lands and possessions for building monasteries, unless they
were compelled to do so by the temporal authorities; which
custom was for some time after observed in all the churches of
the Northumbrians. But enough has now been said on this
subject."
The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England;
ed. by J. A. Giles, book 3, chapter 26.
The English Church passed through several stages during this
period. A notable one was the rise and fall of a loose
monastic system which attracted men and women of the better
classes, but for lack of a strict rule brought itself into
disrepute. Another was the development of classical learning
and the foundation of the school at Jarrow in Northumberland
resulting in making England the intellectual centre of the
world. Venerable Bede, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of
the English Church, was the greatest teacher of this epoch;
and Alcuin, a Northumbrian by birth, and of the school at
York, of the next. Invited by Charlemagne to the Frankish
Court, he carried English learning to the Continent, and
although he died at the time of the foundation of the Empire,
left his influence in many ways on the development of European
culture. A single fact of interest will suffice, to show the
close connection of this early history with that of Rome and
the continent--viz., to Alcuin we are largely indebted for the
parent script which formed our Roman letters. (I. Taylor,
The Alphabet, volume 2, page 180.) Northumbrian learning and the
rich libraries of ancient and Anglo-Saxon literature were
destroyed by the Danes, who, in their incursions, showed for a
long time peculiar animosity to monks and monasteries.
Although the service of this early Anglo-Saxon Church was
partly in the vernacular, and large portions, if not all, of
the Gospels had been translated, little remains to us of its
early religious literature. The translations of the Gospel
into Anglo-Saxon that have come down to us are to be
attributed to a late period.
CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.
The Bulgarian Church.
"In the beginning of this 9th century, a sister of the
reigning Bulgarian king, Bogoris, had fallen as a captive into
the keeping of the Greek emperor. For thirty-eight years she
lived at Constantinople, and was there instructed in the
doctrines of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile, the
administration passed into the hands of the empress Regent,
Theodora. She was interested in a certain monk named Cupharas,
who had been taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, and with a view
to his redemption, she opened negotiations with Bogoris. An
exchange of prisoners was finally effected. The sister of
Bogoris was restored to him, while Cupharas was permitted to
return to Constantinople. Before the release of the pious
monk, however, he had striven, though quite unavailingly, to
win the Bulgarian prince to the service of the Cross. These
fruitless endeavors were supplemented by the entreaties of the
king's sister, on her return from Constantinople. ... At last,
fear snapped the fetters which love had failed to disengage.
... His baptism was celebrated at midnight with profoundest
secrecy. The rite was administered by no less a personage than
the patriarch Photius. He emphasized the solemnity of the
occasion by presenting the neophyte with a lengthy treatise on
Christianity, theoretical and practical, considered mainly in
its bearings on the duties of a monarch. The emperor Michael
stood sponsor by proxy, and the Bulgarian king received, as
his Christian name, that of his imperial god-father. ... The
battle-cries of theology rang over Christendom, and the world
was regaled with the spectacle of a struggle between the rival
Churches for the possession of Bulgaria, a country till
recently so conspicuously destitute of dogma of any kind. The
Bulgarians themselves, doubtless much astonished at the uproar
for their sake, and, surely, more perplexed than ever by the
manners and customs of Christianity, began to waver in their
adherence to the Western Church, and to exhibit symptoms of an
inclination to transfer their allegiance to Constantinople.
The strife went on for years. At last, A. D. 877, the Latin
clergy having been dismissed from the country, Pope John VIII.
solemnly expostulated, protesting against the Greek
proclivities of the Bulgarians, and predicting dire results
from their identity with a Church which was rarely free from
heresy in one form or another. Nevertheless, the Byzantine
leanings of Bulgaria did culminate in union with the Eastern Church.
{465}
A Greek archbishop and bishops of the same communion, settled
in the country. ... 'The Eastern branch' of the Slavonic
languages, properly so called, 'comprehends the Russian, with
various local dialects, the Bulgarian, and the Illyrian. The
most ancient document of this Eastern branch is the so-called
ecclesiastical Slavonic, i. e., the ancient Bulgarian, into
which Cyrillus and Methodius translated the Bible in the
middle of the 9th century. This is still the authorized
version of the Bible for the whole Slavonic race, and to the
student of the Slavonic languages it is what Gothic is to the
student of German.'"
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
pages 54-69.
CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.
Conversion of Moravia.
"In the opening years of the 9th century, Moravia stretched
from the Bavarian borders to the Hungarian river Drina, and
from the banks of the Danube, beyond the Carpathian mountains,
to the river Stryi in Southern Poland. Into this territory
Christianity had been ushered as early as A. D. 801, by
Charlemagne, who, as his custom was, enforced baptism at the
point of the sword, at least as far as the king was concerned.
Efforts were subsequently made by the archbishops of Salzburg
and Passau to fan this first feeble flicker into something
like a flame. But no success attended their exertions.
Paganism was overpoweringly strong, and Christianity not only
weak, but rude and uncouth in type. ... The story of this
country, during the process of emancipation from paganism, is
but a repetition of the incidents with which, in neighbouring
states, we have already become familiar. Ramifications of the
work of Cyril and Methodius extended into Servia. The Slavonic
alphabet made way there, as in Bohemia and Moravia, for
Christianity. The Servians 'enjoyed the advantage of a liturgy
which was intelligible to them; and we find that, early in the
10th century, a considerable number of Slavonian priests from
all the dioceses were ordained by the bishop of Nona, who was
himself a Slavonian by descent.'"
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
chapter 4.
CHRISTIANITY: 9th-10th Centuries.
The Eastern Church as a missionary Church.
"If the missionary spirit is the best evidence of vitality in
a church, it certainly was not wanting in the Eastern Church
during the ninth and tenth centuries of our era. This period
witnessed the conversion to Christianity of the principal
Slavonic peoples, whereby they are both linked with
Constantinople, and bound together by those associations of
creed, as well as race, which form so important a factor in
the European politics of the present day. The Moravians, the
Bulgarians, and the Russians were now brought within the fold
of the Church; and the way was prepared for that vast
extension of the Greek communion by which it has spread, not
only throughout the Balkan peninsula and the lands to the
north of it, but wherever Russian influence is found--as far
as the White Sea on the one side, and Kamtchatka on the other,
and into the heart of Central Asia. The leaders in this great
work were the two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who in
consequence of this, have since been known as the Apostles of
the Slavonians. What Mezrop did for the Armenians, what
Ulfilas did for the Goths, was accomplished for that race by
Cyril in the invention of a Slavonic alphabet, which from this
cause is still known by the name of the Cyrillic. The same
teacher, by his translation of the Scriptures into their
tongue, provided them with a literary language, thereby
producing the same result which Luther's Bible subsequently
effected for Germany, and Dante's Divina Commedia for Italy.
It is no matter for surprise that, throughout the whole of
this great branch of the human race--even amongst the
Russians, who owed their Christianity to another source--the
names of these two brothers should occupy the foremost place
in the calendar of Saints. It is not less significant that
their names are not even mentioned by the Byzantine
historians."
H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 7.
CHRISTIANITY: 9th-11th Centuries.
The Western Church as a missionary Church.
The earlier missions of the Western Church have been
described, but it is noteworthy that again and again missions
to the same regions are necessary. It requires such a map as
the one accompanying this article to make plain the slowness
of its diffusions and the long period needed to produce even a
nominally Christian Europe. "The views of Charlemagne for the
conquest and conversion of the Northern heathens [see SAXONS:
A. D. 772-804], were not confined to the limits, wide as they
were, of Saxony. The final pacification effected at Salz,
seemed to open his eyes to more extensive enterprises in
prospect. Political may have combined with religious motives
in inducing him to secure the peace of his new frontiers, by
enlisting the tribes of Denmark under the banner of the Cross,
and he conceived the idea of planting a church in the
neighbourhood of Hamburg, which should become a missionary
centre. This plan, though interrupted by his death, was not
neglected by his son Louis le Debonnaire, or 'the Pious.' ...
But it is easier to propose such a plan than find one willing
to carry it out. The well-known ferocity of the Northmen long
deterred anyone from offering himself for such a duty. At
length he received intelligence from Wala, the abbot of
Corbey, near Amiens, that one of his monks was not unwilling
to undertake the perilous enterprise, The intrepid volunteer
was Anskar."
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Northmen,
chapter 2.
"In 822, Harold, the king of Jutland, and claimant of the
crown of Denmark, came to seek the help of Louis the Pious,
the son, and one of the successors, of Charlemagne. ... On
Harold's return to Denmark he was accompanied by Anskar, who
well deserves to be called the apostle of Scandinavia. ...
Thus Anskar and Autbert set out in the train of Harold, and
during the journey and voyage a kindly feeling sprang up
between the royal and the missionary families. Harold got no
cordial greeting from his proud heathen subjects when he
announced to them that he had done homage to the emperor, and
that he had embraced the gospel. He seems to have been very
sincere and very earnest in his endeavours to induce his
nobles and subjects to abandon idolatry and embrace
Christianity. To expect that he was altogether judicious in
these efforts would be to suppose that he had those views
regarding the relation that ought to subsist between rulers
and subjects, ... views regarding liberty of conscience and
the right of private judgment. ...
{466}
The result was that after two years, in 828, he was compelled
to abdicate the throne. ... The position of Anskar, difficult
as it was while Harold was on the throne, became still more
difficult after his abdication. ... But just at the time when
the door was shut against him in Denmark, another was opened
in Sweden, which promised to be wider and more effectual. ...
He was kindly received by the Swedish king, who gave him
permission to preach, and his subjects freedom to accept and
profess the gospel of Christ. As Anskar had been led to
expect, so he found, many Christian captives, who had been
brought from other countries,--France, Germany, Britain,
Ireland,--and who, having been as sheep without a shepherd,
gladly received from Anskar those consolations and
exhortations which were fitted to alleviate the sorrows of
their captivity. ... After a year and a half's stay in Sweden,
Anskar returned home, and gladdened the heart of the good
emperor, and doubtless of many others, by the cheering
prospect he was able to present of the acceptance of the
gospel by the Swedes. He was now made nominally bishop of
Hamburg, but with the special design of superintending and
conducting missionary operations both in Denmark and
Sweden.... Horik, king of Denmark, who had driven Harold from
his throne, ... had been hitherto an uncompromising enemy of
the gospel. Anskar undertook the management of some political
negotiations with him, and in the conduct of them made so
favourable an impression on him that he refused to have any
other negotiator or ambassador of the German king at his
court. He treated him as a personal friend, and gave him full
liberty to conduct missionary operations. These operations he
conducted with his usual zeal, and by God's blessing, with
much success. Many were baptized. The Christians of Germany
and Holland traded more freely with the Danes than before, and
the Danes resorted in larger numbers as traders to Holland and
Germany; and in these and other ways a knowledge of the
gospel, and some apprehension of the blessings which it brings
with it, were diffused among the people. ... Although the
Norwegians were continually coming into contact, in the
varying relations of war and peace, with the Swedes and the
Danes, the French and the Germans, the English and the Irish,
and although in this way some knowledge of the Christian
system must have been diffused among them, yet the formal
introduction of it into their country was a full century later
than its introduction into Denmark and Sweden."
Thomas Smith, Mediæval Missions, pages 122-138.
"The conversions in Denmark were confined to the mainland. The
islands still remained pagan, while human victims continued to
be offered till the Emperor Henry I. extorted from Gorm, the
first king of all Denmark, in A. D. 934, protection for the
Christians throughout his realm, and the abolition of human
sacrifices. In Sweden, for seventy years after Anskar's death,
the nucleus of a Christian Church continued to be restricted
to the neighbourhood of Birka, and the country was hardly
visited by Christian missionaries."
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West:
The Northmen, chapter 2.
"It is very remarkable that, in the whole history of the
introduction of Christianity into Norway and Iceland,
extending over a period of a century and a half, we meet not
with the name of any noted bishop, or ecclesiastic, or
missionary. There were, no doubt, ecclesiastics employed in
the work, and these would appear to have been generally
Englishmen; but they occupied a secondary place, almost their
only province being to baptize those whom the kings compelled
to submit to that ordinance. The kings were the real
missionaries; and one cannot help feeling a kind of admiration
for the ferocious zeal which one and another of them
manifested in the undertaking,--even as the Lord commended the
unjust steward because he had done wisely, although his wisdom
was wholly misdirected. The most persistent and the most
successful of these missionary kings was Olaf the Thick, who
came from England in 1017, and set himself with heart and soul
to the work of the demolition of heathenism, and the
substitution of Christianity as the national religion."
Thomas Smith, Mediæval Missions, pages 140-141.
CHRISTIANITY: 10th Century.
The Russian Church.
"In the middle of the 10th century, the widowed Princess Olga,
lately released from the cares of regency, travelled from Kief
to Constantinople. Whether her visit had political objects, or
whether she was prompted to pay it solely, as some say, by a
desire to know more of the holy faith of which only glimpses
had been vouchsafed her at home, cannot be positively decided.
But her sojourn in the imperial city was a turning-point in
her career. Baptism was administered to her by the patriarch
Polyeuctes, the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus
officiating as sponsor. Polyeuctes then solemnly addressed the
princess, predicting that through her instrumentality Russia
should be richly blessed. 'Olga,' writes M. Mouravieff, 'now
become Helena by baptism, that she might resemble both in name
and deed the mother of Constantine the Great, stood meekly
bowing down her head, and drinking in, as a sponge that is
thirsty of moisture, the instructions of the prelate.' ...
Some latent impressions favourable to Christianity her
youngest grandson, Vladimir, doubtless owed to her.
Nevertheless when, at the death of his brother Yarapolk, for
which indeed he was held responsible, he mounted the throne,
no signs of a gracious character revealed themselves. He was,
on the contrary, a bitter and bigoted pagan. ... It seems to
have occurred to many missionaries of varying types, that a
chief of such mark should not be left at the mercy of his own
violent passions. The spiritual well-being of Vladimir
accordingly became the object of laborious journeys, of much
exertion, and of redundant eloquence. ... Last of all came a
Greek emissary. He was neither 'a priest nor a missionary, but
a philosopher.' ... Like Bogoris, the wild Russian chief was
greatly moved. ... The following year the king laid before the
elders of his council the rival pleas of these variously
recommended forms of faith, and solicited their advice. The
nobles mused awhile, and then counselled their master to
ascertain how each religion worked at home. This, they
thought, would be more practical evidence than the plausible
representations of professors. On this suggestion Vladimir
acted. Envoys were chosen,--presumably, for their powers of
observation,--and the embassy of inquiry started. 'This public
agreement,' says the historian of the Russian Church,
'explains in some degree the sudden and general acceptance of
Christianity which shortly after followed in Russia.
{467}
It is probable that not only the chiefs, but the common people
also, were expecting and ready for the change.' A report, far
from encouraging, was in due time received from the
ambassadors. Of the German and Roman, as well as the Jewish,
religions in daily life, they spoke in very disparaging terms,
while they declared the Mussulman creed, when reduced to
practice, to be utterly out of the question. Disappointed in
all these quarters, they now proceeded, by command, to
Constantinople, or, as the Russians called it, Tzaragorod. ...
Singularly enough, the Russian envoys, accustomed, as we must
suppose them to have been, only to the barest simplicity of
life, had complained not only of the paucity of decoration in
the Latin churches, but of a lack of beauty in their
appointments. Thus the preparations of the patriarch were
accurately fitted to their expectant frame of mind. They were
led into the church of S. Sophia, gleaming with variegated
marbles, and porphyries, and jasper, at that time 'the
masterpiece of Christian architecture.' The building glittered
with gold, and rich mosaics. The service was that of a high
festival, either of St. John Chrysostom, or of the Death of
the Virgin, and was conducted by the patriarch in person, clad
in his most gorgeous vestments. ... On their return to
Vladimir, they dilated with eager delight on the wonders they
had seen. The king listened gravely to their glowing account
of 'the temple, like which there was none upon earth.' After
sweetness, they protested, bitterness would be unbearable, so
that--whatever others might do--they at all events should at
once abandon heathenism. While the king hesitated, his boyers
turned the scale by reminding him that if the creed of the
Greeks had not indeed had much to recommend it, his pious and
sagacious grandmother, Princess Olga, would not have loved and
obeyed it. Her name acted like a talisman. Vladimir resolved
to conform to Christianity. But still, fondly clinging to the
habits of his forefathers, he cherished the idea of wooing and
winning his new religion by the sword. ... Under the auspices
of the sovereign, the stately church of St. Basil soon arose,
on the very spot recently occupied by the temple of Perun.
Kief became the centre of Christian influence, whence
evangelizing energies radiated in all directions. Schools and
churches were built, while Michael, the first metropolitan,
attended by his bishops, 'made progresses into the interior of
Russia, everywhere baptizing and instructing the people.' The
Greek canon law came into force, and the use of the
service-book and choral music of the Greek communion became
general, while, in the Slavonic Scriptures and Liturgy of
Cyril and Methodius, a road was discovered which led straight
to the hearts of the native population. 'Cyril and Methodius,
if anyone, must be considered by anticipation as the first
Christian teachers of Russia; their rude alphabet first
instructed the Russian nation in letters, and, by its quaint
Greek characters, still testifies in every Russian book, and
on every Russian house or shop, the Greek source of the
religion and literature of the empire.'"
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
chapter 5.
"As in the first centuries it was necessary that the leaven of
Christianity should gradually penetrate the entire
intellectual life of the cultivated nations, before a new
spiritual creation, striking its root in the forms of the
Grecian and Roman culture, which Christianity appropriated,
could in these forms completely unfold itself; so after the
same manner it was necessary that the leaven of Christianity
which ... had been introduced into the masses of the untutored
nations, should gradually penetrate their whole inward life,
before a new and peculiar spiritual creation could spring out
of it, which should go on to unfold itself through the entire
period of the middle ages. And the period in which we now are
must be regarded as still belonging to the epoch of transition
from that old spiritual creation which flourished on the basis
of Grecian and Roman culture to the new one."
A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
and Church, volume 3, page 456.
We leave the author's sentence incomplete, that it may
express the more fully all the subsequent history of
Christianity.
----------CHRISTIANITY: End----------
CHRISTINA, Queen-regent of Spain, A. D. 1833-1841.
Christina, Queen of Sweden, A. D. 1633-1654.
CHRISTINOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
CHRISTOPHER I., King of Denmark. A. D. 1252-1259.
Christopher II., A. D. 1319-1334.
Christopher III., King of Denmark,
Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1439-1448.
CHRYSE.
Vague reports of a region called Chryse (the Golden),
somewhere beyond the Ganges, and of an island bearing the same
name, off the mouths of the Ganges, as well as of another
island called Argyre (the Silver Island), were prevalent among
the early Roman geographical writers. They probably all had
reference to the Malay peninsula, which Ptolemy called the
Golden Chersonese.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Grog., chapter 25.
CHRYSLER'S FARM, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
CHRYSOBULUM.
See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE.
CHRYSOPOLlS.
Modern Scutari, opposite Constantinople; originally the port
of the city of Chalcedon.
CHRYSOPOLIS, Battle of (A. D. 323).
See Rome: A. D. 305-323.
CHUMARS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
CHUMASHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHUMASHAN FAMILY.
CHUR, The Bishopric of.
See TYROL,
and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
CHURCH, The Armenian.
See ARMENIAN CHURCH.
CHURCH OF BOHEMIA, The Utraquist National.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.
CHURCH IN BRAZIL, Disestablishment of the.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Origin and Establishment.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; 1531-1563; and 1535-1539.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The Six Articles.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The completed Church-reform under Edward VI.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The doubtful conflict of religions.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
{468}
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Romanism restored by Mary.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Recovery of Protestantism under Elizabeth.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Rise of Puritanism.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1564-1565 (?).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Despotism of Laud.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Rise of the Independents.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Root and Branch Bill.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Westminster Assembly.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY), and 1646 (MARCH).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Solemn League and Covenant.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Restoration.
The Savoy Conference.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of Nonconformists.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Charles' Declaration of Indulgence, and the Test Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673, and 1687.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
James' Declaration of Indulgence.
Trial of the seven Bishops.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
The Church and the Revolution.
The Non-Jurors.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1704.
Queen Anne's Bounty.
See QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
----------CHURCH OF ENGLAND: End----------
CHURCH OF FRANCE.
See GALLICAN CHURCH.
CHURCH, The Greek or Eastern.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
CHURCH OF IRELAND, Disestablishment of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
CHURCH OF ROME.
See PAPACY.
CHURCH, The Russian.
The great schism known as Raskol.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Its birth.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The First Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Restoration of Episcopacy.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The First National Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Black Acts.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Appropriation of Church lands.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Five Articles of Perth.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Laud's liturgy and Jenny Geddes' stool.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The signing of the National Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The First Bishops' War.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Second Bishops' War.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Westminster Assembly.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Solemn League and Covenant.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Montrose and the Covenanters.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The restored king and restored prelacy.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
Persecutions of the Covenanters.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679: 1679; 1681-1689.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Revolution and re-establishment of the Presbyterian
Church.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:
The Disruption.
Formation of the Free Church.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
----------CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: End----------
CHURUBUSCO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CIBALIS, Battle of (A. D. 313).
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
CIBOLA, The Seven Cities of.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
CICERO, and the last years of the Roman Republic.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44-42.
CILICIA.-KILIKIA.
An ancient district in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor,
bordering on Syria. It was a satrapy of the Persian Empire,
then a part of the kingdom of the Selucidæ, and afterwards a
Roman province. The chief city of Cilicia was Tarsus, a very
ancient commercial emporium, whose people were noted for
mental acuteness. The Apostle Paul is to be counted among the
distinguished natives of Tarsus, and a quite remarkable number
of eminent teachers of philosophy were from the same
birthplace.
CILICIA, Pirates of.
During the Mithridatic wars piracy was developed to alarming
proportions in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea.
Distracted by civil conflicts and occupied by foreign ones,
simultaneously, the Romans, for a considerable period, gave no
proper heed to the growth of this lawlessness, until they
found their commerce half destroyed and Rome and Italy
actually threatened with starvation by the intercepting of
their supplies from abroad. The pirates flourished under the
protection and encouragement of the king of Pontus, at whose
instance they established their chief headquarters, their
docks, arsenals and magazines, at various points on the coast
of Cilicia. Hence the name Cilician came to be applied to all
the pirates of the time. This era of piracy was brought to an
end, at last, by Pompey, who was sent against them, B. C. 67,
with extraordinary powers conferred by the law known as the
Lex Gabinia. He proceeded to his undertaking with remarkable
energy and ability, and his hunting down of the freebooters
which he accomplished effectually within three months from the
day his operations began, was really the most brilliant
exploit of his life.
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 63.
ALSO IN:
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 1.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 6-7.
{469}
CILICIAN GATES.
A pass through the Taurus range of mountains, opening from
Cappadocia into Cilicia, was anciently called the Pylæ Ciliciæ
or Cilician Gates. The city of Tyana was situated at the
entrance to the pass. Both Xenophon and Alexander, who
traversed it, seem to have regarded the pass as one which no
army could force if properly defended.
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 10, section 2. and chapter 12, section 1.
CILURNUM.
A Roman city in Britain, "the extensive ruins of which, well
described as a British Pompeii, are visible near the modern
hamlets of Chesters."
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
CIMARRONES, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580,
and JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
CIMBRI AND TEUTONES, The.
"For a considerable period [second century, B. C.] an
'unsettled people' had been wandering along the northern verge
of the country occupied by the Celts on both sides of the
Danube. They called themselves the Cimbri, that is, the
Chempho, the champions, or, as their enemies translated it,
the robbers; a designation, however, which to all appearance
had become the name of the people even before their migration.
They came from the north, and the first Celtic people with
whom they came in contact were, so far as is known, the Boii,
probably in Bohemia. More exact details as to the cause and
the direction of their migration have not been recorded by
contemporaries and cannot be supplied by conjecture. ... But
the hypothesis that the Cimbri, as well as the similar horde
of the Teutones which afterwards joined them, belonged in the
main not to the Celtic nation, to which the Romans at first
assigned them, but to the Germanic, is supported by the most
definite facts: viz., by the existence of two small tribes of
the same name--remnants left behind to all appearance in their
primitive seats--the Cimbri in the modern Denmark, the
Teutones in the north-east of Germany in the neighbourhood of
the Baltic, where Pytheas, a contemporary of Alexander the
Great, makes mention of them thus early in connection with the
amber trade; by the insertion of the Cimbri and Teutones in
the list of the Germanic peoples among the Ingævones alongside
of the Chauci; by the judgment of Cæsar, who first made the
Romans acquainted with the distinction between the Germans and
the Celts, and who includes the Cimbri, many of whom he must
himself have seen, among the Germans; and lastly, by the very
names of the people and the statements as to their physical
appearance and habits. ... On the other hand it is conceivable
enough that such a horde, after having wandered perhaps for
many years, and having doubtless welcomed every
brother-in-arms who joined it in its movements near to or
within the land of the Celts, would include a certain amount
of Celtic elements. ... When men afterwards began to trace the
chain, of which this emigration, the first Germanic movement
which touched the orbit of ancient civilization, was a link,
the direct and living knowledge of it had long passed away."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 5.
"The name Kymri, or Cymri, still exists. It is the name that
the Welsh give themselves, but I am not aware that any other
people have called them by that name. These Kymri are a branch
of the great Celtic people, and this resemblance of the words
Kymri and Cimbri has led many modern writers to assume that
the Cimbri were also a Celtic people, as many of the ancient
writers name them. But these ancient writers are principally
the later Greeks, who are no authority at all on such a
matter. ... The name Cimbri has perished in Germany, while
that of the Teutones, by some strange accident, is now the
name of the whole Germanic population."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 9.
CIMBRI: B. C. 113-102.
Battles with the Romans.
The Cimbri and the Teutones made their first appearance on the
Roman horizon in the year 113 B. C. when they entered Noricum.
The Noricans were an independent people, as yet, but accepted
a certain protection from Rome, and the latter sent her
consul, Carbo, with an army, to defend them. Carbo made an
unfortunate attempt to deal treacherously with the invaders
and suffered an appalling defeat. Then the migrating
barbarians, instead of pressing into Italy, on the heels of
the flying Romans, turned westward through Helvetia to Gaul,
and occupied themselves for four years in ravaging that
unhappy country. In 109 B. C., having gathered their plunder
into the fortified town of Aduatuca and left it well
protected, they advanced into the Roman province of Narbo,
Southern Gaul, and demanded land to settle upon. The Romans
resisted and were again overwhelmingly beaten. But even now
the victorious host did not venture to enter Italy, and
nothing is known of its movements until 105 B. C., when a
third Roman army was defeated in Roman Gaul and its commander
taken prisoner and slain. The affrighted Romans sent strong
re-enforcements to the Rhone; but jealousy between the consul
who commanded the new army and the proconsul who retained
command of the old delivered both of them to destruction. They
were virtually annihilated, Oct. 6, B. C. 105, at Arausio
(Orange), on the left bank of the Rhone. It is said that
80,000 Roman soldiers perished on that dreadful field, besides
half as many more of camp followers. "This much is certain,"
says Mommsen, "that only a few out of the two armies succeeded
in escaping, for the Romans had fought with the river in their
rear. It was a calamity which materially and morally far
surpassed the day of Cannæ." In the panic which this disaster
caused at Rome the constitution of the Republic was broken
down. Marius, conqueror of Jugurtha, was recalled from Africa
and not only re-elected to the Consulship, but invested with
the office for five successive years. He took command in Gaul
and found that the formidable invaders had moved off into
Spain. This gave him time, fortunately, for the organizing and
disciplining of his demoralized troops. When the barbarians
reappeared on the Rhone, in the summer of 102 B. C., he faced
them with an army worthy of earlier Roman times. They had now
resolved, apparently, to force their way, at all hazards, into
Italy, and had divided their increasing host, to move on Rome
by two routes. The Cimbri, reinforced by the Tigorini, who had
joined them, made a circuit to the Eastern Alps, while the
Teutones, with Ambrones and Tougeni for confederates crossed
the Rhone and attacked the defenders of the western passes.
Failing to make any impression on the fortified camp of Marius
the Teutones rashly passed it, marching straight for the coast
road to Italy.
{470}
Marius cautiously followed and after some days gave battle to
the barbarians, in the district of Aquæ Sextiæ, a few miles
north of Massilia. The Romans that day took revenge for
Arausio with awful interest. The whole barbaric horde was
annihilated. "So great was the number of dead bodies that the
land in the neighborhood was made fertile by them, and the
people of Massilia used the bones for fencing their
vineyards." Meantime the Cimbri and their fellows had reached
and penetrated the Brenner pass and were in the valley of the
Adige. The Roman army stationed there had given way before
them, and Marius was needed to roll the invasion back. He did
so, on the 30th of July B. C. 101, when the Cimbri were
destroyed, at a battle fought on the Raudine Plain near
Vercellæ, as completely as the Teutones had been destroyed at
Aquæ Sextiæ.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 9.
CIMBRIAN CHERSONESUS.
The modern Danish promontory of Jutland; believed to have been
the home of the Cimbri before they migrated southwards and
invaded Gaul.
CIMINIAN FOREST, The.
The mountains of Viterbo, which formed anciently the frontier
of Rome towards Etruria, were then covered with a thick
forest--"the 'silva Ciminia' of which Livy gives so romantic a
description. It was, however, nothing but a natural division
between two nations which were not connected by friendship,
and wished to have little to do with each other. ... This
forest was by no means like the 'silva Hercynia' with which
Livy compares it, but was of just such an extent that,
according to his own account, the Romans only wanted a couple
of hours to march through it."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 44.
CIMMERIANS, The.
"The name Cimmerians appears in the Odyssey,--the fable
describes them as dwelling beyond the ocean-stream, immersed
in darkness and unblessed by the rays of Helios. Of this
people as existent we can render no account, for they had
passed away, or lost their identity and become subject,
previous to the commencement of trustworthy authorities: but
they seem to have been the chief occupants of the Tauric
Chersonese (Crimea) and of the territory between that
peninsula and the river Tyras (Dneister) at the time when the
Greeks first commenced their permanent settlements on those
coasts in the seventh century B. C. The numerous localities
which bore their name, even in the time of Herodotus, after
they had ceased to exist as a nation,--as well as the tombs of
the Cimmerian kings then shown near the Tyras,--sufficiently
attest the fact; and there is reason to believe that they
were--like their conquerors and successors the Scythians--a
nomadic people, mare-milkers, moving about with their tents
and herds, suitably to the nature of those unbroken steppes
which their territory presented, and which offered little
except herbage in profusion. Strabo tells us--on what
authority we do not know--that they, as well as the Trêres and
other Thracians, had desolated Asia Minor more than once
before the time of Ardys [King of Lydia, seventh century B.
C.] and even earlier than Homer."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.
See, also, CUMÆ.
CIMON, Career of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, to 460-449.
CIMON, Peace of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.
The founding and naming of the city.
In 1787 "an offer was made to Congress by John Cleve Symmes
[afterwards famous for his theory that the earth is hollow,
with openings at the poles], to buy two millions of acres
between the Little and the Great Miamis. Symmes was a
Jerseyman of wealth, had visited the Shawanese country, had
been greatly pleased with its fertility, and had come away
declaring that every acre in the wildest part was worth a
silver dollar. It was too, he thought, only a question of
time, and a very short time, when this value would be doubled
and tripled. Thousands of immigrants were pouring into this
valley each year, hundreds of thousands of acres were being
taken up, and the day would soon come when the rich land along
the Miamis and the Ohio would be in great demand. There was
therefore a mighty fortune in store for the lucky speculator
who should buy land from Congress for five shillings an acre
and sell it to immigrants for twenty. But ... his business
lagged, and though his offer to purchase was made in August,
1787, it was the 15th of May, 1788, before the contract was
closed. In the meantime he put out a pamphlet and made known
his terms of sale. A copy soon fell into the hands of Matthias
Denman. He became interested in the scheme and purchased that
section on which now stands the city of Cincinnati. One third
he kept, one third he sold to Robert Patterson, and the
remainder to John Filson. The conditions of the purchase from
Symmes gave them two years in which to begin making clearings
and building huts. But the three determined to lose no time,
and at once made ready to layout a city directly opposite that
spot where the waters of the Licking mingled themselves with
the Ohio. Denman and Patterson were no scholars. But Filson
had once been a schoolmaster, knew a little of Latin and
something of history, and to him was assigned the duty of
choosing a name for the town. ... He determined to make one,
and produced a word that was a most absurd mixture of Latin,
Greek and French. He called the place Losantiville, which,
being interpreted, means the city opposite the mouth of the
Licking. A few weeks later the Indians scalped him."
J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the U. S.,
volume 1, page 516.
The name given a little later to Filson's settlement was
conferred on it by General St. Clair, Governor of the
Territory, in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1788-1802.
ALSO IN:
F. W. Miller, Cincinnati's Beginnings.
CINCINNATI: A. D. 1863.
Threatened by John Morgan's Rebel Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
----------CINCINNATI: End----------
{471}
CINCINNATI, The Society of the.
"Men of the present generation who in childhood rummaged in
their grandmothers' cosy garrets cannot fail to have come
across scores of musty and worm-eaten pamphlets, their yellow
pages crowded with italics and exclamation points, inveighing
in passionate language against the wicked and dangerous
Society of the Cincinnati. Just before the army [of the
American Revolution] was disbanded, the officers, at the
suggestion of General Knox, formed themselves [April, 1783]
into a secret society, for the purpose of keeping up their
friendly intercourse and cherishing the heroic memories of the
struggle in which they had taken part. With the fondness for
classical analogies which characterized that time, they
likened themselves to Cincinnatus, who was taken from the plow
to lead an army, and returned to his quiet farm so soon as his
warlike duties were over. They were modern Cincinnati. A
constitution and by-laws were established for the order, and
Washington was unanimously chosen to be its president. Its
branches in the several states were to hold meetings each
Fourth of July, and there was to be a general meeting of the
whole society every year in the month of May. French officers
who had taken part in the war were admitted to membership, and
the order was to be perpetuated by descent through the eldest
male representatives of the families of the members. It was
further provided that a limited membership should from time to
time be granted, as a distinguished honour, to able and worthy
citizens, without regard to the memories of the war. A golden
American eagle attached to a blue ribbon edged with white was
the sacred badge of the order; and to this emblem especial
favour was shown at the French court, where the insignia of
foreign states were generally, it is said, regarded with
jealousy. No political purpose was to be subserved by this
order of the Cincinnati, save in so far as the members pledged
to one another their determination to promote and cherish the
union between the states. In its main intent the society was
to be a kind of masonic brotherhood, charged with the duty of
aiding the widows and the orphan children of its members in
time of need. Innocent as all this was, however, the news of
the establishment of such a society was greeted with a howl of
indignation all over the country. It was thought that its
founders were inspired by a deep-laid political scheme for
centralizing the government and setting up a hereditary
aristocracy. ... The absurdity of the situation was quickly
realized by Washington, and he prevailed upon the society, in
its first annual meeting of May, 1784, to abandon the
principle of hereditary membership. The agitation was thus
allayed, and in the presence of graver questions the
much-dreaded brotherhood gradually ceased to occupy popular
attention."
J. Fiske, The Critical Period of American History, chapter 3.
J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the U. S.,
volume 1, chapter 2.
"The hereditary succession was never abandoned. A
recommendation to that effect was indeed made to the several
State Societies, at the first General Meeting in Philadelphia.
... But the proposition, unwillingly urged, was accepted in
deprecatory terms by some, and by others it was totally
rejected. ... At the second General Meeting, it was resolved
'that the alterations could not take effect until they had
been agreed to by all the State Societies.' They never were so
agreed to, and consequently the original Institution remains
in full force. Those Societies that accepted the proposed
alterations unconditionally, of course perished with their own
generation."
A. Johnston, Some Accounts of the Society of the Cincinnati
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
volume 6, pages 51-53).
"The claim to membership has latterly been determined not by
strict primogeniture, but by a 'just elective preference,
especially in the line of the first-born,' who has a moral but
not an absolutely indisputable right; and membership has
always been renewed by election. ... Six only of the original
thirteen states--Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina--are still [in
1873] represented at the General Meetings. The largest
society, that of Massachusetts, consisting originally of 343
members, now [1873] numbers less than 80; that of New York,
from 230 had in 1858 decreased to 73; the 268 of Pennsylvania
to about 60; the 110 of New Jersey, in 1866, to 60; and the
131 of South Carolina was, in 1849, reduced to 71."
F. S. Drake, Memorials of the Society of the
Cincinnati of Mass., page 37.
CINCO DE MAYO, Battle of (1862).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
CINE, The.
Kinsfolk of the head of the tribe, among the ancient Irish.
CINQ MARS, Conspiracy of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
CINQUE PORTS, The.
"Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe--this is the order
in which the Cinque Ports were ranked in the times when they
formed a flourishing and important confederation. Winchelsea
and Rye were added to these five ... soon after the Norman
Conquest. ... The new comers were officially known as 'the two
Ancient Towns.' When therefore we wish to speak of this famous
corporation with strict accuracy we say, 'The five Cinque
Ports and two Ancient Towns.' The repetition of the number
'five' in this title probably never struck people so much as
we might expect, since it very soon came to be merely a
technical term, the French form of the word being pronounced,
and very often spelt 'Synke' or 'Sinke,' just as if it was the
English 'Sink.' ... The difference between the Cinque Ports
and the rest of the English coast towns is plainly indicated
by mediæval custom, since they were generally spoken of
collectively as 'The Ports.' ... Most writers upon this
subject ... have been at pains to connect the Cinque Ports by
some sort of direct descent with the five Roman stations and
fortresses which, under the Comes Littoris Saxonici [see SAXON
SHORE, COUNT OF], guarded the south-eastern shores of
Britain."
M. Burrows, The Cinque Ports, chapter 1-3.
"Our kings have thought them [the Cinque Ports] worthy a
peculiar regard; and, in order to secure them against
invasions, have granted them a particular form of government.
They are under a keeper, who has the title of Lord Warden of
the Cinque Ports (an officer first appointed by William the
Conqueror), who has the authority of an admiral among them,
and issues out writs in his own name. The privileges anciently
annexed to these ports and their dependents were [among
others]: An exemption from all taxes and tolls. ... A power to
punish foreigners, as well as natives, for theft. ... A power
to raise mounds or banks in any man's land against breaches of
the sea. ... To convert to their own use such goods as they
found floating on the sea; those thrown out of ships in a
storm; and those driven ashore when no wreck or ship was to be
seen. To be a guild or fraternity, and to be allowed the
franchises of court-leet and court-baron. A power to assemble
and keep a portmote or parliament for the Cinque Ports.
{472}
... Their barons to have the privilege of supporting the
canopy over the king's head at his coronation. In return for
these privileges the Cinque Ports were required to fit out 57
ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, with which they were
to attend the king's service for 15 days at their own expense;
but if the state of affairs required their assistance any
longer they were to be paid by the crown. ... As the term
baron occurs continually throughout all the charters of the
Ports, it may not be improper to inform our readers that it is
of the same import as burgess or freeman. ... The
representatives of the Ports in parliament are to this day
styled barons." The post of Warden of the Cinque Ports,
"formerly considered of so much honour and consequence, is now
converted into a patent sinecure place, for life, with a
salary of £4,000 a year."
History of the Boroughs of Great Britain; together with the
Cinque Ports, volume 3.
The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during
the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the
Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount
Palmerston, and Earl Granville.
CINTRA, Convention of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
CIOMPI, Tumult of the.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS, The northern.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
CIRCASSIANS.
See CAUCASUS.
CIRCLES OF GERMANY, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
CIRCUMCELLIONES, The.
See DONATISTS.
CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522.
Magellan's voyage: the first in history.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1577-1580.
Drake's voyage.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
----------CIRCUMNAVIGATION: End----------
CIRCUS, Factions of the Roman.
"The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a
simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were
distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional
colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards
introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times,
one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp
of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal
establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful
colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in
the four seasons of the year. ... Another interpretation
preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the
green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the
earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a
plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the
hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less
absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted
their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had
espoused. ... Constantinople adopted the follies, though not
the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had
agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the
hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this
popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens,
who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under
baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of
their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was
diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the
sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and
irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a
feeble government. ... A sedition, which almost laid
Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and
momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful
tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the
cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in
connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of
January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the
mob and large districts in it were burned, including many
churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian
would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic
opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the
imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier,
Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the
hippodrome and in the streets.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
CIRCUS MAXIMUS AT ROME, The.
"The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the
most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the
buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly
equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus
Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the
spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was
successively restored and ornamented by the republican
government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus,
Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building
which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum,
but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a
vestige of it now being left."
R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna,
introduction and chapter 12.
See, also, FORUM BOARIUM.
CIRENCESTER, Origin of.
See CORINIUM.
CIRRHA.
See DELPHI.
CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586, and DELPHI.
CIRTA.
An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in
Algeria is on its site.
See NUMIDIANS.
CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).
See ROME: B. C. 390-347.
CISALPINE REPUBLIC.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
1797 (MAY--OCTOBER);
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.
CISLEITHANIA.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
CISPADANE GAUL.
Cisalpine Gaul south of the Padus, or Po.
See PADUS.
CISPADANE REPUBLIC, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL),
and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
CISSIA (KISSIA).
See ELAM.
{473}
CISTERCIAN ORDER.
The Monastery of Citeaux.
"Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the
monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a
passion for wandering and for study which led him first to
Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that
on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy,
he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and
habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the
monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life
which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother
of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began
to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he
perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most
other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of
S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had
no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates
in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the
matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was
equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original
rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their
investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a
schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their
accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the
zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding
himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen
others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left
Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site
which they chose--in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far
from Dijon--was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as
the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It
was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn,
dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new
house took its name of 'the Cistern'--Cistellum, commonly
called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to
carry into practice their views of monastic duty. ...
Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion
during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was
Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to
become inseparably associated with the name of another English
saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony,
whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house
itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the
place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and
Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called
from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and
Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance
into their founder's native land."
K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN: S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, 21.
CITEAUX, The Monastery of.
See CISTERCIAN ORDER.
CITIES, Chartered.
See COMMUNE;
also BOROUGHS, and GUILDS.
CITIES, Free, of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.
CITIES, Imperial and Free, of Germany
"The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH
CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the
national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free
cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in
immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically
independent republics; and those which, while owning some
dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet
conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government.
The local distribution of the former, which is curiously
unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the
dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful
house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were
few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in
abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a
hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and
five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while
in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. ... The Imperial free
cities ... were self-governed, under constitutions in which
the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in
various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they
were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will
of the ruler counted for more and more. ... In these cities
the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes
were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory
war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the
cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial
feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land,
retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak,
directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection
against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that
their liberties and privileges were bound up with the
maintenance of the general order. ... In them, too, as we
might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."
C. Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation, page 16.
"Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133
free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas
imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the
Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a
Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas
imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor
Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a
'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year
1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places
'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg,
Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities
subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the
Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of
Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347]
Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial
towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course
of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or
conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there
were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne,
Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns
appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:--1. They were
exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They
were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition
beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and
duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were
distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the
imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon."
Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing
as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was
disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands
of a military and civil governor. ... On the imperial towns
becoming independent, the administration of the town was
entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons,
according to the population, and the members of this kind of
town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or
Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser.
{474}
The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of
their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister,
Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. ... Many of the imperial towns
gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In
like manner we find that others either lost their privileges
or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or
ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires
placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective
archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were
seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the
Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and
Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the
Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the
circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and,
in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at
length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction
should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To
accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or
confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in
forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their
representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet.
The principal confederations brought into existence by the
struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian
Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] ... At the Diet held
at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial
towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of
Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally
recognized, they were formed into a separate college. ... By
the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz.,
Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to
France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy
with the exception of the following six:--Augsburg, Nuremberg,
Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first
three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in
1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and
Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as
members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to
the year 1866."
W. J. Wyatt, History of Prussia, volume 2, pages 427-432.
"According to the German historians the period of the greatest
splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th
centuries. ... In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same
prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The
Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them
escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless,
the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts
their position as immediate states, that is to say, states
which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the
neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the
Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the
Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the
empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and
narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in
existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an
independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised
any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home
they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because
they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate
suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own
administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this
bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret
disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the
form of their constitution. ... Their population decreased,
and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes
of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine
in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing
modern society. Trade forsook them--their ancient energy and
patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still
remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this
was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."
A. de Tocqueville, State of Society in France before
1789, note C.
See, also, HANSA TOWNS.
Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were
then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the
Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the
Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg,
Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were
annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and
to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the
Germanic Confederation then formed.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS of.
Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining
the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in
1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last
of the "free cities."
See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
CITY.
See BOROUGH.
CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.
"Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,'
with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to
which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for
violet."
G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812.
Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.
CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.
"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only
two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by
a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and
Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and
the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives
Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman
colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had
received the Roman citizenship."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 17.
See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,
The First.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-
The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.
{475}
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.
"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of
the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil
service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people.
When that result was attained, the final struggle with
patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a
large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the
best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan
agency. They began to see the need of some method by which
fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than
by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the
Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of
the great problems of the future. No government had then
solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of
any political action, or mere official influence, became more
and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great
parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of
such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously
threatened their power, unless the party system itself could
be made more acceptable to the people. ... There was an
abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his
patronage--no way was opened by which a person of merit could
get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party
or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of
every port of entry to the public service, which made it
tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin
of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a
poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as
before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in
its ranks--subserviency to members and to ministers--and
electioneering on their behalf--these were the virtues before
which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were
opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole
system increased. ... During the Melbourne administration,
between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a
condition for admission to the service, came from two very
different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared
that they could not do the public work with such poor servants
as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more
independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to
be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament
and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who
might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so
far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of
the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive
examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation
to attempt at once. These examinations--several of them being
competitive--introduced by public officers in self-defence
many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced
striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example,
they had brought about a reform that arrested public
attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused
the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher
salaries were bidden for them for private service.' ... These
examinations were steadily extended from office to office down
to the radical change made in 1853. ... It had been provided,
long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of
India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but
should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course
of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil
West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent
instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the
patronage of nomination for such instruction. ... If it seems
strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a
college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which
patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same
influence which sent them there was used to keep them there.
... Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852
and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a
condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction
of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly
made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was
disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the
government to command the respect of the more intelligent
portion of the people of India, and there was a still more
alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad
in the army as in the civil offices. ... There was, in short,
a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused
the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was
decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to
save British supremacy in India. A change of system was
entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India
act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and
privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company
to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students ...
shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be
made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty,
who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be
admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be
seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same
blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India
to every British citizen. ... In 1853, the British Government
had reached a final decision that the partisan system of
appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial
control of nominations by members of Parliament, however
guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass
examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect
upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and
fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. ... The
administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly
decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. ... It
was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made
to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English
Executive ... for the time being. The first step decided upon
was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service.
Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to
make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in
November of the same year. ... A system of competitive
examinations ... [was] recommended. ... The report was
accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into
effect, from which quote the following passages.
{476}
... 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in
the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting
by the surest of all motives--the desire a man has of
bettering himself in life. ... They will have attained their
situations in an independent manner through their own merits.
The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and
diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the
higher classes of official men. ... The effect of it in giving
a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be
overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was
the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an
English administration for the home government. I hardly need
repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were
(with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the
new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations.
... But the great feature of the report, which made it really
a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its
advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put
on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was
as theoretical as it was radical. ... A chorus of ridicule,
indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the
official and partisan places of politics. The government saw
that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear
than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in
which to trust the tender years of such a reform. ... The
executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the
people, and also requested the written opinions of a large
number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of
office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon
it was requested. ... About the time that English public
opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official
report, and before any final action had been taken upon it,
the Aberdeen administration went out. ... Lord Palmerston came
into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of
nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical
statesman. ... Upon his administration fell the duty of
deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report.
... He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more
by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of
patronage. ... Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and
trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's
administration advised that an order should be made by the
Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such
an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."
D. B. Eaton, Civil Service in Great Britain.
CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States]
arises from the fact that the president has the power of
appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly
postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the
federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do
with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or
servants of the national government in conducting its
business; and if the business of the national government is to
be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail
in the management of private business, such servants ought to
be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during
good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to
regard the management of the public business in any other
light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present
century a vicious system was growing up in New York and
Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to
be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By
securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little
in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain
some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to
him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent
than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make
room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens
'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the
front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. ... The
civil service of these states was seriously damaged in
quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for
offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public
service in return, and the line which separates taxation from
robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up
an idea that there is something especially democratic, and
therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the
change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson
to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and
Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson
cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his
predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of
office with a keen zest. During the forty years between
Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number
of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were
defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's ad-
ministration the number of changes made in the civil service
was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a
national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase
originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in
the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the
spoils.' ... In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to
reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many
Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they
followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same
way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary
at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the
offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system
began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful
people."
J. Fiske, Civil Government in the United States,
pages 261-264.
"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made
[toward a reform]. ... This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode
Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several
speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end
to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But
the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so
awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in
his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it,
and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized
the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil
Service, such regulations as would best promote its
efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for
the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may
'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may
prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the
conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil
Service.'
{477}
In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil
Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made
chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an
appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its
expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that
nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000
asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly
appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in
New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject
of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been
the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before
the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an
examination in his office. ... Under Grant's commission, open
competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at
Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in
the New York Post office. Although this commission labored
under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was
able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by
the President and his cabinet. ... The rules adopted by
Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis.
They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served
as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest
taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of
his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the
Reform. ... Other able men took an active part in the
movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment
did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further
appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a
consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere
suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this
method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after
the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. ... President
Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged
it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not
consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little
attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual
aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March,
1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New
York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to
Mr. Burt by the Collector. ... In 1880, Postmaster James
revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office.
... When the President, desiring that these examinations
should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an
appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this,
competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York
Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform
Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the
methods and progress of reform in other countries, President
Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit
England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton
spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and
his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by
the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate
and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report
was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great
Britain.' ... For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received
no compensation from the Government, not even his personal
expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due,
also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform
Associations."
H. Lambert, The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the
United States, pages 6-10.
"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at
Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result
of a conference among members of civil service reform
associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of
the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in
the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our
fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children.
The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty
approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the
Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil
Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of
38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House
only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87
members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its
passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes
for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due,
undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a
panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent
election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it
was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition
that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by
reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was
that of a Congress of which probably the members had very
little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject.
But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was
undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which
always commands the future. ... The passage of the law was the
first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement.
The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability
of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of
administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy
departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and
other important custom houses and post offices, without the
least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable
class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is
conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party
independence, that, in these chief branches of the public
service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed
system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these
offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform
principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the
public service to which the reformed methods apply are now
included within those methods."
G. W. Curtis, Address at Annual Meeting of the National
Civil-Service Reform League. 1891.
CIVILIS, Revolt of.
See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799(AUGUST-APRIL).
CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.
See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
{478}
CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.
St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the
monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D.
1091-1153] ... revived the practice in the monastery of
Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux,
which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which
had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of
the perfect monk. ... He was not a Pope, but he was greater
than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the
history of the Christian Church is the history of the
influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."
C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.
"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of
persons who desired to join the society which could boast of
so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard
proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose
for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known
as the Valley of Wormwood. ... The district pertained to the
bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed
abbey of Clairvaux."
H. Stebbing, History of Christ's Universal Church,
chapter 26.
ALSO IN:
A. Butler, Lives of the Saints, volume 8.
W. F. Hook, Ecclesiastical Biog., volume 2.
J. C. Morison, Life and Times of St. Bernard.
See, also, CISTERCIAN ORDER.
CLANS, Highland.
"The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and
the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were
supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus,
and they were distinguished from each other by their
patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being
unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] ... In considering the
genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in
the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the
sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very
important meaning. Their rights were derived through the
common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to
each other, indicated their position in the succession, as
well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In
such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same
position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the
Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of
families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. ... During the
16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with
the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were
made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over
them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; ... but
they were followed in a few years by an important Statute,
which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans,
and led to another great change in the theory of their
descent. ... The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves
compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could
compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to
maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the
Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device
necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate
to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and
to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to
maintain their position when a native descent had lost its
value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this
period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to
be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and
spurious charters inserted. ... The form which these
pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus
or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or
a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the
chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with
the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line,
thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete
with that of the great Norman families with a feudal
succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan
genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form
where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or
patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. ... The
conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees
which have been popularly accepted at different times has
brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin
of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and
untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted
as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or
founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations
beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be
rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious
pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited
by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such
prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung;
but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector
Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine
annals of the national history, and became rooted in those
parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as
local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure
usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious
king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line
of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their
eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now
implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible,
however, from these genealogies, and from other indications,
to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having
apparently a closer connection with each other, and these
groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into
which the Gaelic population was divided before they became
broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the
greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in
the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and
the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the
Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the
clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and
Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their
respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the
clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of
Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of
Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old
Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of
Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to
Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group
containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to
have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with
the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called,
were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and
partly of foreign descent."
W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 3, chapter 9 (volume 3).
{479}
CLARENDON, The Constitutions and the Assize of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
CLARIAN ORACLE, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
CLARK, George Rogers, and the conquest of the Northwest.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
CLAUDIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 41-54.
Claudius II., A. D. 268-270.
CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D.1679; 1681-1689, and 1689 (JULY).
CLAY, Henry,
The war of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
The Tariff question.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824,
and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
In the Cabinet of President John Quincy Adams.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.. D. 1825-1828.
Defeat in the Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.
The Compromise Measures of 1850.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.
During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical
factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and
Charcoals.
J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 8, page 204.
CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, The.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
CLEAR GRITS.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
CLEISTHENES, Constitution of,
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
CLEMENT II., Pope, A. D. 1046-1047.
Clement III., Pope, A. D. 1187-1191.
Clement IV., Pope, A. D. 1265-1268.
Clement V., Pope, A. D. 1305-1314..
Clement VI., Pope, A. D. 1342-1352.
Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon).
Clement VII., Pope, A. D. 1523-1534.
Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605.
Clement IX., Pope, A. D. 1667-1669.
Clement X., Pope, A. D. 1670-1676.
Clement XI., Pope, A. D. 1700-1721.
Clement XII., Pope, A. D. 1730-1740.
Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769.
Clement XIV., Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.
CLEOMENIC (KLEOMENIC) WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
And Mark Antony.
See ROME: B. C. 31.
CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.
"The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally
set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred
them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At
present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment
[London] while the other is on its way to the United States of
America."
G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 20, note.
The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New
York, having been brought over and erected by Commander
Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.
H. H. Gorringe, Egyptian Obelisks.
See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.
CLEPHES, King of the Lombards, A. D. 573-586.
CLERGY, Benefit of.
See BENEFIT OF CLERGY.
CLERGY RESERVES.
See CANADA: A. D. 1837.
CLERMONT.
See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.
CLERMONT, The Council of.
Speech of Pope Urban.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.
CLERUCHI.
See KLERUCHS.
CLEVELAND, Grover:
First Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884 to 1889.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.
Second Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
CLEVELAND:
The founding and naming of the City (1796).
See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
CLICHY CLUB.--CLICHYANS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
CLIENTES, Roman.
"To [the Roman] family or household united under the control
of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the
breaking up of such households, there further belonged the
dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term
denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar
circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household
than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon
in law as the property of the household and not as members of
it, but those individuals who, while they were not free
burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a
condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees
who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those
slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being
waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them
practical freedom. This relation had not properly the
character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man
to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free,
although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case
the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the
household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly
so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent
on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Fustel De Coulanges, The Ancient City,
book 4, chapter 1 and 6.
CLINTON, Dewitt, and the Erie Canal.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
CLINTON, George, The first Governor of New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
CLINTON, General Sir Henry,
and the war of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST);
1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST);
1781 (JANUARY).
CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
CLISSAU OR CLISSOW, Battle of (1702).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752, to 1757-1772.
{480}
CLOACA MAXIMA OF ROME, The.
"Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great
sewer, the 'cloaca maxima,' the object of which, it may be
observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city,
but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the
Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine and Palatine, then
extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a
swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Viminal.
This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square
blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day
moved a knife's breadth from one another ... equalling the
pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the
difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more
one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a
large and powerful state could have executed it. ... Whether
the cloaca maxima was actually executed by Tarquinus Priscus
or by his son Superbus is a question about which the ancients
themselves are not agreed, and respecting which true
historical criticism cannot presume to decide. But this much
may be said, that the structure must have been completed
before the city encompassed the space of the seven hills and
formed a compact whole. ... But such a work cannot possibly
have been executed by the powers of a state such as Rome is
said to have been in those times."
B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome,
lectures 5 and 8.
CLODOMIR, King of the Franks, at Orleans, A. D. 511-524.
CLONARD, Monastery of.
A great monastery founded in Meath, Ireland, by St. Finnian,
in the sixth century, "which is said to have contained no
fewer than 3,000 monks and which became a great
training-school in the monastic life." The twelve principal
disciples of Finnian were called the "Twelve Apostles of
Ireland," St. Columba being the chief.
W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 2.
CLONTARF, Battle of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
CLONTARF MEETING, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.
CLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1758.
CLOTHAIRE I., King of the Franks, A. D. 511-561.
Clothaire II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 584-628;
(Austrasia), 613--622; Burgundy, 613--628.
Clothaire III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),
A. D. 660-670.
Clothaire IV., King of the Franks
(Austrasia), A. D. 717-719.
CLOVIS, King of the Franks, A. D. 481-511.
Clovis II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 638-654;
(Austrasia), 650-654; (Burgundy), 638-654.
Clovis III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),
A. D. 691-695.
CLUBS, Ancient Greek.
See LESCHE, HETÆRIES, ERANI and THIASI.
CLUBS: The Beef Steak,
"In 1735 there was formed in the capital [London] the
celebrated Beef Steak Club, or 'Sublime Society of Beef
Steaks,' as its members always desired to be designated. The
origin of this club is singular, and was in this wise. Rich,
a celebrated harlequin, and patentee of Covent Garden Theatre
in the time of George II., while engaged during the daytime
in directing and controlling the arrangements of the stage
scenery was often visited by his friends, of whom he had a
very numerous circle. One day, while the Earl of Peterborough
was present, Rich felt the pangs of hunger so keenly that he
cooked a beef-steak and invited the earl to partake of it,
which he did, relishing it so greatly that he came again,
bringing some friends with him on purpose to taste the same
fare. In process of time the beef-steak dinner became an
institution. Some of the chief wits and greatest men of the
nation, to the number of 24, formed themselves into a
society, and took as their motto 'Steaks and Liberty.' Among
its early celebrities were Bubb Doddington, Aaron Hill, Dr.
Hoadley, Richard Glover, the two Colmans, Garrick and John
Beard. The number of the 'steaks' remained at its original
limit until 1785, when it was augmented by one, in order to
secure the admission of the Heir-Apparent."
W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th Century,
chapter 6 (volume 1).
CLUBS: The Brothers'.
In 1711, a political club which took this name was founded in
London by Henry St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, to
counteract the "extravagance of the Kit Cat" and "the
drunkenness of the Beefsteak." "This society ... continued for
some time to restrain the outburst of those elements of
disunion with which the Harley ministry was so rife. To be a
member of this club was esteemed a distinguished honour. They
addressed each other as 'brother'; and we find their ladies in
their correspondence claiming to be enrolled as sisters. The
members of this club were the Dukes of Ormond, Shrewsbury,
Beaufort; the Earls of Oxford, Arran, Jersey, Orrery,
Bathurst; Lords Harley, Duplin, Masham; Sir Robert Raymond,
Sir William Windham, Colonel Hill, Colonel Desney, St. John,
Granville, Arbuthnot, Prior, Swift, and Friend."
G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapter 10.
CLUBS:
The Clichy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
CLUBS:
The French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
CLUBS:
The Hampden.
See ENGLAND: A.. D. 1816-1820.
CLUBS:
Dr. Johnson's.
"During his literary career Dr. Johnson assisted in the
foundation of no fewer than three clubs, each of which was
fully deserving of the name. In 1749 he established a club at
a house in Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row, and only the year before
he died he drafted a code of rules for a club, of which the
members should hold their meetings, thrice in each week, at
the Essex Head in the Strand; an establishment which was then
kept by a former servant of his old friends the Thrales. Those
members who failed to put in an appearance at the club were
required to forfeit the sum of two pence. There is an
interesting account of one of the meetings of the Ivy Lane
Club, at which Johnson presided, in Sir John Hawkins's
biography of him. ... The next club with which Johnson became
acquainted was the most influential of them all, and was the
one which is now chiefly remembered in connection with his
name. It was, however, a plant of slow and gradual growth. The
first meeting of its members, who exulted in the designation
of 'The Club,' was held in 1763 at a hostelry called the
Turk's Head, situated in Gerard Street, Soho.
{481}
'The Club' retained that title until after the funeral of Garrick,
when it was always known as 'The Literary Club.' As its
numbers were small and limited, the admission to it was an
honour greatly coveted in political, legal, and literary
circles. 'The Club' originated with Sir Joshua Reynolds, then
President of the Royal Academy, who at first restricted its
numbers to nine, these being Reynolds himself, Samuel Johnson,
Edmund Burke, Dr. Christopher Nugent (an accomplished Roman
Catholic physician), Bennet Langton, Topham Beauclerk, Sir
John Hawkins, Oliver Goldsmith, and M. Chamier, Secretary in
the War Office. The members assembled every Monday evening
punctually at seven o'clock, and, having partaken of an
inexpensive supper, conversed on literary, scientific and
artistic topics till the clock indicated the hour of retiring.
The numbers of the Literary Club were subsequently augmented
by the enrolment of Garrick, Edward Gibbon, Lord Charlemont,
Sir William Jones, the eminent Oriental linguist, and James
Boswell, of biographical fame. Others were admitted from time
to time, until in 1791 it numbered 35. In December, 1772, the
day of meeting was altered to Friday, and the weekly suppers
were commuted to fortnightly dinners during the sitting of
parliament. Owing to the conversion of the original tavern
into a private house, the club moved, in 1783, first to
Prince's, in Sackville Street; next to Le Telier's in Dover
Street; then, in 1792, to Parsloe's in St. James's Street; and
lastly, in February, 1799, to the Thatched House Tavern in St.
James's Street, where it remained until long after 1848."
W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th
Century, chapter 6 (volume 1).
CLUBS:
The King's Head.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
CLUBS:
The Kit Cat.
"The Kit Cat Club was instituted in 1699. Its most illustrious
members were Congreve, Prior, Sir John Vanbrugh, the Earl of
Orrery, and Lord Somers; but the members becoming more
numerous, the most violent party obtained the majority, and
the Earl and his friends were less regular in their
attendance. ... The Kit Cat took its name from a pastry-cook
[Christopher Katt], whose pies formed a regular dish at the
suppers of the club."
G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapter 10, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
J. Timbs, Clubs and Club Life in London, pages 47-53.
W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th century,
chapter 6.
CLUBS:
The Mohocks.
See MOHOCKS.
CLUBS:
The October and the March.
"The October Club came first into importance in the latest
years of Anne, although it had existed since the last decade
of the 17th century. The stout Tory squires met together in
the 'Bell' Tavern, in narrow, dirty King Street, Westminster,
to drink October ale, under Dahl's portrait of Queen Anne, and
to trouble with their fierce uncompromising Jacobitism the
fluctuating purposes of Harley and the crafty counsels of St.
John. The genius of Swift tempered their hot zeal with the
cool air of his 'advice.' Then the wilder spirits seceded, and
formed the March Club, which retained all the angry Jacobitism
of the parent body, but lost all its importance."
J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, volume 1, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th
century, chapter 6.
CLUBMEN.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
CLUGNY, OR CLUNY, The Monastery of.
The famous monastery of Clugny, or Cluny, was founded A. D.
910, at Cluny, near Macon, in Burgundy, by the abbot Count
Berno, who had previously established and ruled the monastery
of Gigni, near Lyons. It was founded under the auspices and at
the expense of William, Count of Auvergne, commonly called
William the Pious. "In the disastrous times which followed the
death of Charles the Great and the failure of his scheme to
reorganize the Western world under a single head, the
discipline of the religious houses fell with everything else;
fell, not perhaps quite so soon, yet by the end of the ninth
century had fallen almost as low as it was possible to fall.
But here symptoms of a moral reaction showed themselves
earlier than elsewhere. The revival dates from 910, the year
of the foundation of the Monastery of Clugny in Burgundy,
which was destined to exercise an enormous influence on the
future of the Church. While matters at Rome were at their
worst, there were silently training there the men who should
inaugurate a new state of things [notably Hildebrand,
afterwards Pope Gregory VII.] Already, so one said at the
time, the whole house of the Church was filled with the sweet
savour of the ointment there poured out. It followed that
wherever in any religious house there were any aspirations
after a higher life, any longings for reformation, that house
affiliated itself to Clugny; thus beginning to constitute a
Congregation, that is a cluster of religious houses, scattered
it might be over all Christendom, but owning one rule,
acknowledging the superiority of one mother house, and
receiving its abbots and priors from thence. In the Clugnian
Congregation, for example, there were about two thousand
houses in the middle of the twelfth century--these mostly in
France; the Abbot, or Arch-Abbot, as he was called, of Clugny,
being a kind of Pope of Monasticism, and for a long time, the
Pope excepted, quite the most influential Church-ruler in
Christendom."
R. C, Trench, Lect's on Mediæval Church History,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, chapter 18-26.
A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory, VII. book 1.
S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Introduction to
the Study of English History, chapter 3, section 8.
E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the
Middle Ages, book 3, no. 4.
CLUNIAC MONKS.
See CLUGNY.
CLUSIUM, Battle of (B. C. 83).
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
CLYPEUS, The.
The round iron shield of the Romans.
E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 107.
CNOSSUS.
See CRETE.
CNUT.
See CANUTE.
CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
COAHUILTECAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.
COAJIRO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.
COALITION MINISTRY OF FOX AND LORD NORTH.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783; and 1783-1787.
COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL);
{482}
COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON:
GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1813 (MAY-AUGUST),
and FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
COALITIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER);
1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
COBBLER'S LEAGUE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.
COBDEN, Richard, and the Free Trade movement.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846;
and TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.
COBDEN-CHEVALIER COMMERCIAL TREATY, The.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.
COBURG, Origination of the Dukedom of.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
COCCIUM.
An important Roman town in Britain, the remains of which are
supposed to be found at Ribchester.
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
COCHIBO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
COCHIQUIMA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
COCO TRIBES.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
COCONOONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.
COCOSATES, The.
See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
COD, Cape: A. D. 1602.
Named by Bartholomew Gosnold.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
COD, Cape: A. D. 1605.
Called Cap Blanc by Champlain.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605.
COD, Cape: A. D. 1609.
Named New Holland by Hudson.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
----------COD, Cape: End----------
CODE NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
CODES.
See LAWS, &c.
CODS, The.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
and 1482-1493.
CŒLE-SYRIA.
"Hollow Syria"--the long, broad, fertile and beautiful valley
which lies between the Libanus and Antilibanus ranges of
mountains, and is watered by the Orontes and the Leontes or
Littany rivers. "Few places in the world are more remarkable,
or have a more stirring history, than this wonderful vale."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia, chapter 1.
CŒNOBIUM.--CŒNOBITES.
"The word 'Cœnobium' is equivalent to 'monasterium' in the
later sense of that word. Cassian distinguishes the word thus.
'Monasterium,' he says, 'may be the dwelling of a single monk,
Cœnobium must be of several; the former word,' he adds,
'expressed only the place, the latter the manner of living.'"
I. G. Smith, Christian Monasticism, page 40.
ALSO IN:
J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church,
book 7, chapter 2, section 3.
COFAN, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
COGNOMEN, NOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.
See GENS, ROMAN.
COHORTS.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
COIMBRA: Early history.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
COLBERT, The System of.
Colbertism.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).
Also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
COLCHESTER, Origin of.
When Cæsar first opened to the Romans some knowledge of
Britain, the site of modern Colchester was occupied by an
"oppidum," or fastness of the Trinobantes, which the Romans
called Camulodunum. A little later, Camulodunum acquired some
renown as the royal town of the Trinobantine king, or prince,
Cunobelin,--the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. It was after the
death of Cunobelin, and when his son Caractacus was king,
during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that the Romans
began their actual conquest of Britain. Claudius was present,
in person, when Camulodunum was taken, and he founded there
the first Roman colony in the island, calling it Claudiana
Victricensis. That name was too cumbrous to be preserved; but
the colonial character of the town caused it to be called
Colonia-ceaster, the Colonia fortress,--abbreviated, in time,
to Colne-ceaster, and, finally, to Colchester. The colony was
destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of their rising, under
Boadicea, but was reconstituted and grew into an important
Roman town.
C. L. Cutts, Colchester, ch, 1-6.
COLCHESTER: A. D. 1648.
The Roundhead siege and capture.
On the collapse of the Royalist rising of 1648, which produced
what is called the Second Civil War of the Puritan
revolutionary period, Colchester received the "wreck of the
insurrection," so far as London and the surrounding country
had lately been threatened by it. Troops of cavaliers, under
Sir Charles Lucas and Lord Capel, having collected in the
town, were surrounded and beleaguered there by Fairfax, and
held out against their besiegers from June until late in
August. "After two months of the most desperate resistance,
Colchester, conquered by famine and sedition, at last
surrendered (Aug. 27); and the next day a court-martial
condemned to death three of its bravest, defenders, Sir
Charles Lucas, Sir George Lisle, and Sir Bernard Gascoign, as
an example, it was said, to future rebels who might be tempted
to imitate them. In vain did the other prisoners, Lord Capel
at their head, entreat Fairfax to suspend the execution of the
sentence, or at least that they should all undergo it, since
all were alike guilty of the offence of these three. Fairfax,
excited by the long struggle, or rather intimidated by Ireton,
made no answer, and the condemned officers were ordered to be
shot on the spot." Gascoign, however, was reprieved at the
last moment.
F. P. Guizot, History of the English Revolution, book 8.
ALSO IN:
C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 26-27.
----------COLCHESTER: End----------
COLCHIANS, The.
"The Colchians appear to have been in part independent, in
part subject to Persia. Their true home was evidently that
tract of country [on the Euxine] about the river Phasis. ...
Here they first became known to the commercial Greeks, whose
early dealings in this quarter seem to have given rise to the
poetic legend of the Argonauts. The limits of Colchis varied
at different times, but the natural bounds were never greatly
departed from. They were the Euxine on the east, the Caucasus
on the north, the mountain range which forms the watershed
between the Phasis (Rion) and the Cyrus (Kur) on the west, and
the high ground between Batoum and Kars (the Moschian
mountains) on the south. ... The most interesting question
connected with the Colchians is that connected with their
nationality. They were a black race dwelling in the midst of
whites, and in a country which does not tend to make its
inhabitants dark complexioned. That they were comparatively
recent immigrants from a hotter climate seems therefore to be
certain. The notion entertained by Herodotus of their Egyptian
extraction appears to have been a conjecture of his own. ...
Perhaps the modern theory that the Colchians were immigrants
from India is entitled to some share of our attention. ... If
the true Colchi were a colony of blacks, they must have become
gradually absorbed in the white population proper to the
country."
G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,
book 7, appendix. 1.
See, also, ALARODIANS.
{483}
COLD HARBOR, First and second battles of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),
and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
COLDEN, Cadwallader, The lieutenant-governorship of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774 to 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
COLIGNY, Admiral de,
The religious wars in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563 to 1572.
American Colonies.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, 1564-1565, and 1565.
COLLAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
COLLEGIA.
Numerous associations called "collegia" existed in ancient
Rome, having various purposes. Some were religious
associations (collegia templorum); some were organizations of
clerks or scribes; some were guilds of workmen; some appear to
have had a political character, although the political clubs
were more commonly called "sodalitates."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 11.
COLLINE GATE, D'HERBOIS Battle of the (B. C. 83).
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
COLLOT, and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to
1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
COLMAR, Cession to France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
COLMAR, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
COLOGNE: Origin.
See COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.
COLOGNE: The Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
COLOGNE: In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
----------COLOGNE: End----------
COLOMAN.
See KOLOMAN.
COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, OR BORNY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
COLOMBIA, United States of.
See COLOMBIAN STATES.
COLOMBIAN STATES, The.
This general title will be used, for convenience, to cover,
for considerable periods of their history, the territory now
divided between the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and the
United States of Colombia (formerly New Granada), the latter
embracing the Isthmus of Panama. The history of these
countries being for a long time substantially identical in the
main, and only distinguishable at intervals, it seems to be
difficult to do otherwise than hold it, somewhat arbitrarily,
under one heading, until the several currents of events part
company distinctly.
COLOMBIAN STATES:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHA.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
The Spanish conquest of New Granada.
Creation of the new vice-royalty.
"For some time after the disastrous failure of the attempt of
Las Casas to found a colony on the Pearl coast of Cumaná, the
northern portion of Spanish South America, from the Orinoco
westwards, is almost lost to history. The powers working for
good had signally failed, and the powers of evil seemed to
have it almost all their own way. ... Lying behind these
extensive coasts to the westward in the interior, is the
region to which the Spaniards gave the name of the kingdom of
New Granada, the name being applied in consequence of a
resemblance which was detected between the plain around Santa
Fe de Bogotá and the royal Vega which adjoins the historical
Moorish capital. New Granada was a most extensive region,
comprising as it did the entire country from sea to sea in the
north, lying between 60° and 78° longitude, and from 6° to 15°
of latitude." The Spanish conquest of New Granada was achieved
in the main by Ximenes de Quesada, who invaded the country
from the north, although the governor of Quito, Benalcazar,
entered it likewise from the south. "Ximenes de Quesada came
to America about the year 1535, in the suite of the Governor
of Santa Marta, by whom he was selected to lead an expedition
against the Chibchas, who dwelt on the plain of Bogotá and
around the headwaters of the Magdalena. Setting out in April
1536 with 800 men, he succeeded in pushing his way through the
forest and across innumerable streams. He contrived to subsist
for eight months, during which he traversed 450 miles,
enduring meanwhile the very utmost exertions and privations
that human nature could support. ... When he had surmounted
the natural difficulties in his path, his remaining force
consisted of but 166 men, with 60 horses. On March 2d, 1537,
he resumed his advance; and, as usually happened, the mere
sight of his horsemen terrified the Indians into submission.
At Tunja, according to the Spanish historians, he was
treacherously attacked whilst resting in the palace of one of
the chiefs. ... In any case, the chief was taken, and, after
much slaughter, Ximenes found himself the absolute possessor
of immense riches, one golden lantern alone being valued at
6,000 ducats. From Tunja Ximenes marched upon the sacred city
of Iraca, where two Spanish soldiers accidentally set fire to
the great Temple of the Sun. The result was that, after a
conflagration which lasted several days, both the city and the
temple were utterly destroyed. ... On the 9th of August, 1538,
was founded the city of Bogotá. Ximenes was soon here joined
by Frederman, a subject of the Emperor Charles V., with 160
soldiers, with whom he had been engaged in conquering
Venezuela; and likewise by Benalcazar, the conqueror of Quito.
This latter warrior had crossed the continent in triumph at
the head of 150 Spaniards, together with a multitude of native
followers."
{484}
In the intrigues and jealous rivalries between the three which
followed, Ximenes de Quesada was pushed aside, at first, and
even fined and banished by the Emperor; but in the end he
triumphed and was appointed marshal of the kingdom of New
Granada. "On his return to Bogotá in 1551, he, to his credit,
exhibited an energy in protecting the people of the country
against their invaders, equal to that which he had displayed
in effecting their conquest. Ten years later he commanded a
force organized to repel an attack from the ruler of
Venezuela; shortly after which he was appointed Adelantado of
the Kingdom of New Granada. He devoted three years, and an
enormous amount of toil and money, to an absurd expedition in
quest of the fabled El Dorado [see EL DORADO]." Quesada died
of leprosy in 1572. Until 1718 the kingdom of New Granada
remained subject to the Viceroy of Peru. In that year the
Viceroyalty of Peru "was divided into two portions, the
northern region, from the frontiers of Mexico as far as to the
Orinoco, and on the Southern Sea from Veragua to Tumbez,
forming the Viceroyalty of New Granada, of which the capital
was Bogota. To this region, likewise, was assigned the inland
province of Quito. The Viceroyalty of New Granada, in fact,
comprised what now [1884] forms the Republic of Venezuela, the
United States of Columbia, and the Republic of Equador." In
1731 "it was deemed expedient to detach from the Viceroyalty
of New Granada the provinces of Venezuela, Maracaibo, Varinas,
Cumaná, and Spanish Guyana, and to form them into a separate
Captain-Generalship, the residence of the ruler being fixed at
Caracas in Venezuela."
R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
volume 2, chapter 9.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
The struggle for independence and its achievement.
Miranda and Simon Bolivar.
The Earthquake in Venezuela.
The founding of the Republic of Colombia.
"The Colombian States occupy the first place in the history of
South American independence. ... The Colombian States were
first in the struggle because they were in many ways nearest
to Europe. It was through them that intercourse between the
Pacific coast and Europe was mainly carried on: Porto Bello
and Carthagena were thus the main inlets of European ideas.
Besides, there was here constant communication with the West
Indies; and government, population and wealth were less
centralised than in the more important viceroyalties of Mexico
and Peru. The Indians of New Granada had always been a
restless race, and the increase of taxation which was resorted
to for the defence of the coast in the war with Great Britain
(1777-1783) produced discontents among the whole population,
both red and white. ... The French Revolution, coming soon
afterwards, was another link in the chain of causes. ... In
Venezuela, which the industry of its inhabitants had raised
from a poor mission district to a thriving commercial
province, the progress of modern ideas was yet faster. ... The
conquest of Trinidad by England in 1797 gave a new turn to the
movement. ... It was from Trinidad that the first attempts
were made to excite the Spanish colonists to revolution.
Francis Miranda, by whom this was done, was a type of many
other men to whom is due the credit of leading the South
American peoples to independence. He was a native of Caraccas,
and when a young man had held a French commission in the
American War of Independence. On his return to Venezuela in
1783 he found the populace, as we have already mentioned, in
an excited state, and finding that he was suspected of designs
for liberating his own country, he went to Europe, and again
attached himself to the French service. ... Being proscribed
by the Directory, he turned to England, and ... when the war
[between England and Spain] broke out afresh in 1804, and
England sent out an expedition to invade Buenos Ayres, Miranda
believed that his opportunity was come. In 1806, by English
and American aid, he sailed from Trinidad and landed with 500
men on the coast of Venezuela. But the 'Colombian Army,' as
Miranda named it, met with a cool reception among the people.
His utter inability to meet the Spanish forces compelled him
to retreat to Trinidad, nor did he reappear on the continent
until after the revolution of 1810. The principal inhabitants
of Caraccas had been meditating the formation of a provisional
government, on the model of the juntas of Spain, ever since
the abdication of the king [see SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808]; but
it was not until 1810, when the final victory of Napoleon in
Spain appeared certain, that they made a decisive movement in
favour of independence. Spain, for the time at least, was now
blotted out of the list of nations. Acting, therefore, in the
name of Ferdinand VII., they deposed the Spanish colonial
officers, and elected a supreme junta or council. Similar
juntas were soon established in New Granada, at Santa Fe,
Quito, Carthagena, and the other chief towns of the
Viceroyalty ... and the fortune of the patriot party in new
Granada, from their close neighbourhood, was closely linked
with that of the Venezuelans. The Regency of Cadiz, grasping
for itself all the rights and powers of the Spanish nation,
determined to reduce the colonists to subjection. They
therefore declared the port of Caraccas in a state of
blockade, as the British government had done in the previous
generation with that of Boston; and, as in the case of Boston,
this resolution of the Regency amounted to a declaration of
war. ... A congress of all the provinces of Venezuela now met
at Caraccas, and published a declaration of independence on
the 5th of July, 1811, and those of Mexico and New Granada
soon followed. ... The powers of nature seemed to conspire
with the tyranny of Europe to destroy the young South American
Republic. On the 26th of March, 1812, Venezuela was visited by
a fearful earthquake, which destroyed the capital [Caraccas]
and several other towns, together with 20,000 people, and many
others perished of hunger and in other ways. This day was Holy
Thursday; and the superstitious people, prompted by their
priests, believed this awful visitation to be a judgment from
God for their revolt. The Spanish troops, under Monteverde,
now began a fresh attack on the disquieted Venezuelans.
Miranda, who on his return had been placed at the head of the
army, had in the meantime overrun New Granada, and laid the
foundation of the future United States of Colombia. But the
face of affairs was changed by the news of the earthquake.
Smitten with despair, his soldiers now deserted to the
royalists; he lost ground everywhere; the fortress of Puerto
Cavello, commanded by the great Bolivar, then a colonel in the
service of the Republic, was surrendered through treachery.
{485}
On the 25th of June Miranda himself capitulated, with all his
forces; and Venezuela fell once more into the hands of the
royalists. Miranda himself was arrested, in defiance of the
terms of the surrender, and perished in an European dungeon,
as Toussaint had perished a few years before. ... Monteverde
emptied the prisons of their occupants, and filled them with
the families of the principal citizens of the republic; and
Caraccas became the scene of a Reign of Terror. After
Miranda's capitulation, Bolivar had gone to New Granada, which
still maintained its independence, and entered into the
service of that republic. Bolivar now reappeared in a new
character, and earned for himself a reputation in the history
of the new world which up to a certain point ranks with that
of Washington. Simon Bolivar, like Miranda, was a native of
Caraccas. ... Like Miranda, he had to some extent learned
modern ideas by visiting the old world and the United States.
When the cruelties of Monteverde had made Venezuela ripe for a
new revolt, Bolivar reappeared on his native soil at the head
of a small body of troops from the adjacent republic. The
successes which he gained so incensed the royalists that they
refused quarter to their prisoners, and war to the death
('guerra a muerte') was proclaimed. All obstacles disappeared
before Bolivar's generalship, and on the 4th of August, 1813,
he publicly entered Caraccas, the fortress of Puerto Cavello
being now the only one in the possession of the royalists.
Bolivar was hailed with the title of the liberator of
Venezuela. He was willing to see the republic restored; but
the inhabitants very properly feared to trust at this time to
anything but a military government, and vested the supreme
power in him as dictator (1814). The event indeed proved the
necessity of a military government. The defeated royalists
raised fresh troops, many thousands of whom were negro slaves,
and overran the whole country; Bolivar was beaten at La
Puerta, and forced to take refuge a second time in New
Granada; and the capital fell again into the hands of the
royalists. ... The War of Independence had been undertaken
against the Regency; and had Ferdinand, on his restoration to
the throne in 1814, shown any signs of conciliation, he might
yet have recovered his American provinces. But the government
persisted in its course of absolute repression. ... New
Granada, where Bolivar was general in chief of the forces, was
the only part where the insurrection survived; and in 1815 a
fleet containing 10,000 men under General Morillo arrived off
Carthagena, its principal port. ... Carthagena was only
provisioned for a short time: and Bolivar, overpowered by
numbers, quitted the soil of the continent and went to the
West Indies to seek help to relieve Carthagena, and maintain
the contest for liberty." Obtaining assistance in Hayti, he
fitted out an expedition "which sailed in April from the port
of Aux Cayes. Bolivar landed near Cumana, in the eastern
extremity of Venezuela, and from this point he gradually
advanced westwards, gaining strength by slow degrees. In the
meantime, after a siege of 116 days, Carthagena surrendered;
5,000 of its inhabitants had perished of hunger. Both
provinces were now in Morillo's hands. Fancying himself
completely master of the country, he proceeded to wreak a
terrible vengeance on the Granadines. But at the news of
Bolivar's reappearance, though yet at a distance, the face of
affairs changed. ... His successes in the year 1817 were sure,
though slow: in 1818, after he had been joined by European
volunteers, they were brilliant. Bolivar beat the royalists in
one pitched battle after another [Sagamoso, July 1, 1819, and
Pantano de Bargas, July 25]: and at length a decisive victory
was won by his lieutenant, Santander, at Boyaca, in New
Granada, August 1, 1819. This battle, in which some hundreds
of British and French auxiliaries fought on the side of
liberty, completely freed the two countries from the yoke of
Spain."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.
ALSO IN:
C. S. Cochrane, Journal of a Residence in Colombia,
volume 1, chapters 6-8.
H. Brownell, North and South America Illustrated,
pages 316-334.
C. Cushing, Simon Bolivar
(N. Am. Review, January, 1829, and January, 1830).
H. L. V. D. Holstein, Memoirs of Bolivar, chapter 3-20.
Major Flintner, History of the Revolution of Caraccas.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
The glory and the fall of Bolivar.
Dissolution of the Colombian Federation.
Tyranny under the Liberator, and monarchical schemes.
Three days after the battle of Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota
in triumph. "A congress met in December and decided that
Venezuela and Nueva Granada should form one republic, to be
called Colombia. Morillo departed for Europe in 1820, and the
victory gained by Bolivar at Carabobo on June 24, 1821,
decided the fate of Colombia. In the following January General
Bolivar assembled an army at Popayan to drive the Spaniards
out of the province of Quito. His second in command, General
Sucre, led an advanced guard, which was reinforced by a
contingent of volunteers from Peru, under Santa Cruz. The
Spanish General Ramirez was entirely defeated in the battle of
Pichincha, and Quito was incorporated with the new republic of
Colombia."
C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 8, chapter 5).
"The provinces of New Granada and Venezuela, together with the
Presidency of Quito, now sent delegates to the convention of
Cucuta, in 1821, and there decreed the union of the three
countries as a single state by the name of the Republic of
Colombia. The first Colombian federal constitution was
concocted by the united wisdom of the delegates; and the
result might easily have been foreseen. It was a farrago of
crude and heterogeneous ideas. Some of its features were
imitated from the American political system, some from the
English, some from the French. ... Bolivar of course became
President: and the Republic had need of him. The task of
liberation was not yet completed. Carthagena, and many other
strong places, remained in Spanish hands. Bolivar reduced
these one by one, and the second decisive victory of Carabobo,
in 1822, finally secured Colombian freedom. The English claim
the chief share in the battle of Carabobo: for the British
legion alone carried the main Spanish position, losing in the
feat two-thirds of its numbers. The war now fast drew to its
close. The republic was able to contest with the invaders the
dominion of the sea: General Padilla, on the 23rd of July,
1823, totally destroyed the Spanish fleet: and the Spanish
commander finally capitulated at Puerto Cavello in December.
{486}
All these hard-won successes were mainly owing to the bravery
and resolution of Bolivar. Bolivar deserves to the full the
reputation of an able and patriotic soldier. He was now set
free ... to render important services to the rest of South
America: and among the heroes of independence perhaps his name
will always stand first. But Bolivar the statesman was a man
very different from Bolivar the general. He was alternately
timid and arbitrary. He was indeed afraid to touch the
problems of statesmanship which awaited him: but instead of
leading the Colombian people through independence to liberty,
he stubbornly set his face against all measures of political
or social reform. His fall may be said to have begun with the
moment when his military triumphs were complete. The
disaffection to the constitution of the leading people in
Venezuela and Ecuador [the new name given to the old province
of Quito, indicating its position at the equator] in 1826 and
1827, was favoured by the Provincial governors, Paez and
Mosquera; and Bolivar, instead of resisting the disintegration
of the state, openly favoured the military dictatorships which
Paez and Mosquera established. This policy foreshadowed the
reign of absolutism in New Granada itself. Bolivar ... had now
become not only the constitutional head of the Colombian
federation, but also the military head of the Peruvian
republics [see PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and
1826-1876]: and there can be no doubt that he intended the
Colombian constitution to be reduced to the Peruvian model. As
a first step towards reuniting all the South American nations
under a military government, Paez, beyond reasonable doubt,
with Bolivar's connivance, proclaimed the independence of
Venezuela, April 30th, 1826. This practically broke up the
Colombian federation: and the destruction of the constitution,
so far as it regarded New Granada itself, soon followed.
Bolivar had already resorted to the usual devices of military
tyranny. The terrorism of Sbirri, arbitrary arrests, the
assumption of additional executive powers, and, finally, the
suppression of the vice-presidency, all pointed one way. ...
At length, after the practical secession of Venezuela and
Ecuador under their military rulers, Congress decreed a
summons for a Convention, which met at Ocaña in March, 1828.
... The liberals, who were bent on electoral reform and
decentralization, were paralyzed by the violent bearing of the
Bolivian leaders: and Bolivar quartered himself in the
neighbourhood, and threatened the Convention at the head of an
army of 3,000 veterans. He did not, however, resort to open
force. Instead of this, he ordered his party to recede from
the Convention: and this left the Convention without the means
of making a quorum. From this moment the designs of Bolivar
were unmistakable. The dissolution of the Convention, and the
appointment of Bolivar as Dictator, by a junta of notables,
followed as a matter of course; and by the 'Organic decree' of
August 1828, Bolivar assumed the absolute sovereignty of
Colombia. A reign of brute force now followed: but the triumph
of Bolivar was only ephemeral. ... The Federation was gone:
and it became a question of securing military rule in the
separate provinces. A portentous change now occurred in
Ecuador. The democratic party under Flores triumphed over the
Bolivians under Mosquera: and Paez assured his chief that no
help was to be expected from Venezuela. At the Convention of
Bogota, in 1830, though it was packed with Bolivar's nominees,
it became clear that the liberator's star had set at last. ...
This convention refused to vote him President. Bolivar now
withdrew from public life: and a few months later, December
17, 1830, he died broken-hearted at San Pedro, near Santa
Martha. Bolivar, though a patriot as regarded the struggle
with Spain, was in the end a traitor to his fellow citizens.
Recent discoveries leave little doubt that he intended to
found a monarchy on the ruins of the Spanish dominion. England
and France, both at this time strongly conservative powers,
were in favour of such a scheme; and a Prince of the House of
Bourbon had already been nominated to be Bolivar's successor."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.
"About one month before his death, General Bolivar, the
so-called 'Liberator' of South America, wrote a letter to the
late General Flores of Ecuador, in which the following
remarkable passages occur, which have never before been
published in the English language: 'I have been in power for
nearly 20 years, from which I have gathered only a few
definite results: 1. America, for us, is ungovernable. 2. He
who dedicates his services to a revolution, plows the sea. 3.
The only thing that can be done in America, is to emigrate. 4.
This country will inevitably fall into the hands of the
unbridled rabble, and little by little become a prey to petty
tyrants of all colors and races.'"
F. Hassaurek, Four Years among Spanish-Americans,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
J. M. Spence, The Land of Bolivar, volume 1, chapter 7.
E. B. Eastwick, Venezuela, chapter 11 (Battle of
Carabobo).
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation of slaves.
The abolition of slavery in the three republics of New
Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador was initiated in the Republic
of Colombia, while it embraced them all. "By a law of the 21st
of July, 1821, it was provided that the children of slaves,
born after its publication in the principal cities of the
republic, should be free. ... Certain revenues were
appropriated to the creation of an emancipation fund in each
district. ... Aside from a certain bungling looseness with
which almost all Spanish-American laws are drawn, it [the act
of 1821] contains some very sensible regulations, and served
to lay a solid foundation for the work of emancipation, since
completed by the three republics which then constituted
Colombia." In Ecuador the completion of emancipation was
reached in 1854.
F. Hassaurek, Four Years among Spanish-Americans,
pages 330-333.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
The Congress of Panama.
"The proposition for assembling this body emanated from
Bolivar, who, in 1823, as president of Colombia, invited the
governments of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Buenos Ayres, to form
a confederacy of the Spanish-American states, by means of
plenipotentiaries to be convened, in the spirit of classic
analogy, in the isthmus of Panama. To this invitation the
governments of Peru and Mexico promptly acceded, Chile and
Buenos Ayres neglected or declined to be represented in the
assembly, for the reasons which we shall presently state.
{487}
This magnificent idea of a second Achæan League seized on the
imaginations of many speculative and of some practical men in
America and Europe, as destined to create a new era in the
political history of the world by originating a purer system
of public law, and almost realizing Bernardin de Saint
Pierre's league of the modern nations. In its original shape,
it was professedly a plan of a belligerent nature, having for
its main object to combine the revolutionized states against
the common enemy. But time was required for carrying it into
effect. Meanwhile the project, magnified by the course of
events, began to change its complexion. The United States were
invited to participate in the Congress, so as to form an
American policy, and a rallying point for American interests,
in opposition to those of Europe; and, after the discussions
which are so familiar to all, the government of the United
States accepted the invitation, and despatched its
representatives to Panama. ... In the interval, between the
proposal of the plan and its execution, Central America was
added to the family of American nations, and agreed to take
part in the Congress. At length, after many delays, this
modern Amphictyonic Council, consisting of plenipotentiaries
from Colombia, Central America, Peru and Mexico, assembled in
the city of Panama, June 22, 1826, and in a session of three
weeks concluded various treaties; one of perpetual union,
league, and confederation; others relating to the contingents
which the confederates should contribute for the common
defence; and another for the annual meeting of the Congress in
time of war. Having thus promptly despatched their private
affairs, the assembly adjourned to Tacubaya in Mexico, on
account of the insalubrious climate of Panama, before the
delegation of the United States had arrived; since when it has
justly acquired the epithet of 'introuvable,' and probably
never will reassemble in its original form. Is there not a
secret history of all this? Why did Chile and Buenos Ayres
refuse to participate in the Congress? Why has it now vanished
from the face of the earth? The answer given in South America
is, that Bolivar proposed the assembly as part of a grand
scheme of ambition,--ascribed to him by the republican party,
and not without some countenance from his own conduct,--for
establishing a military empire to embrace the whole of
Spanish-America, or at least an empire uniting Colombia and
the two Perus. To give the color of plausibility to the
projected assembly, the United States were invited to be
represented; and it is said Bolivar did not expect, nor very
graciously receive, their acceptance of the invitation."
C. Cushing, Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution (N. A.
Review, January, 1830).
In the United States "no question, in its day, excited more
heat and intemperate discussion, or more feeling between a
President and Senate, than this proposed mission to the
Congress of American nations at Panama; and no heated question
ever cooled off and died out so suddenly and completely. ...
Though long since sunk into oblivion, and its name almost
forgotten, it was a master subject on the political theatre
during its day; and gave rise to questions of national and of
constitutional law, and of national policy, the importance of
which survive the occasion from which they sprung; and the
solution of which (as then solved), may be some guide to
future action, if similar questions again occur. Besides the
grave questions to which the subject gave rise, the subject
itself became one of unusual and painful excitement. It
agitated the people, made a violent debate in the two Houses
of Congress, inflamed the passions of parties and individuals,
raised a tempest before which Congress bent, made bad feeling
between the President [John Quincy Adams] and the Senate; and
led to the duel between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay. It was an
administration measure, and pressed by all the means known to
an administration. It was evidently relied upon as a means of
acting upon the people--as a popular movement which might have
the effect of turning the tide which was then running high
against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. ... Now, the chief benefit to
be derived from its retrospect--and that indeed is a real
one--is a view of the firmness with which was then maintained,
by a minority, the old policy of the United States, to avoid
entangling alliances and interference with the affairs of
other nations;--and the exposition of the Monroe doctrine,
from one so competent to give it as Mr. Adams."
T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, chapter 25 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
G. F. Tucker, The Monroe Doctrine, chapter 3.
C. Schurz, Life of Henry Clay, chapter 11 (volume 1).
International American Conference (of 1889): Reports and
Discussions, volume 4, History appendix.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.
Revolutions and civil wars.
The New Confederation (1863) of the United States of Colombia.
The Republic of Colombia.
"New Granada was obliged in 1830 to recognize the disruption
of Colombia, which had long been an accomplished fact. From
this date the three states have a separate history, which is
very much of a piece, though Venezuela was for some years
preserved from the intestine commotions which have from the
beginning distracted New Granada and Ecuador. ... Mosquera,
who had won the election which decided the fate of Bolivar did
not long occupy the presidency. ... Mosquera was soon driven
out by General Urdanete, who was now at the head of the
conservative or Bolivian party. But after the death of their
leader, this party suffered a natural relapse, and Urdanete
was overthrown early in 1831. The history of New Granada may
be said really to commence with the presidency of Bolivar's
old rival and companion in arms, Santander, who was elected
under the constitution of 1832. ... His presidency ... was a
comparatively bright episode: and with its termination in 1836
begins the dark and troubled period which the Granadines
emphatically designate by the name of the 'Twelve Years.' The
scanty measure of liberalism which Santander had dealt out to
the people was now withdrawn. Marquez, his successor, was a
sceptic in politics and a man of infirm will. ... Now began
the ascendancy of clericalism, of absolutist oligarchy, and of
government by the gallows. This same system continued under
President Herran, who was elected in 1841; and then appeared
on the scene, as his chief minister, the famous Dr. Ospina,"
who brought back the Jesuits and curtailed the constitution.
Liberalism again gained ground, electing General Lopez to the
presidency in 1849 find once more expelling the Jesuits. In
April 1854 a radical revolution overturned the constitution
and President Obando was declared dictator. The conservatives
rallied, however, and regained possession of the government
before the close of the year.
{488}
In 1857 Ospina entered on the presidency and civil war soon
raged throughout the country. "After a hundred fights the
revolution triumphed in July, 1861. ... Mosquera, who was now
in possession of the field, was a true pupil of Bolivar's, and
he thought the time had come for reviving Bolivar's plans. ...
In 1863 Mosquera's new Federal Constitution was proclaimed.
Henceforth each State [of the eight federal States into which
the 44 provinces of New Granada were divided] became
practically independent under its own President; and to mark
the change the title of the nation was altered. At first it
was called the Granadine Confederation: but it afterwards took
the name of Colombia [the United States of Colombia], which
had formerly been the title of the larger Confederation under
Bolivar. Among the most important facts in recent Colombian
history is the independence of the State of Panama, which has
become of great importance through the construction of the
railway connecting the port of Colon, or Aspinwall, as it was
named by the Americans, on the Atlantic, with that of Panama
on the Pacific. This rail way was opened in 1855; and in the
same year Panama declared itself a sovereign state. The State
of Panama, after many years of conservative domination, has
now perhaps the most democratic government in the world. The
President is elected for two years only, and is incapable of
re-election. Panama has had many revolutions of its own; nor
has the new Federal Constitution solved all the difficulties
of the Granadine government. In 1867 Mosquera was obliged to
have recourse to a coup d'état, and declared himself dictator,
but he was soon afterwards arrested; a conservative revolution
took place; Mosquera was banished; and Gutierrez became
President. The liberals, however, came back the next year,
under Ponce. Since 1874 [the date of writing being 1879],
General Perez has been President of Colombia."
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.
"The federal Constitution of 1863 was clearly formed on the
model of the Constitution of the United States of America. It
remained in force until 1886, when it was superseded by a law
which gave the State a centralized organization and named it
the 'Republic of Colombia.'"
Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, with
Historical Introduction by B. Moses (Supplement to Annals
of American Academy of Political and Social Science,
January, 1893).
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1885-1891.
The Revolution of 1885.
The constitution of 1886.
The presidency of Dr. Nuñez.
"Cartagena is virtually the centre of political power in
Colombia, for it is the residence of President Nuñez, a
dictator without the name. Before the revolution of 1885,
during which Colon was burned and the Panama Railway protected
by American marines, the States enjoyed a large measure of
home rule. The insurgents who were defeated in that struggle
were Radicals and advanced Liberals. They were making a stand
against centralized government, and they were overthrown. When
the followers of Dr. Nuñez were victorious, they transformed
the constitutional system of the country. ... Dr. Nuñez, who
had entered public life as a Radical agitator, swung
completely around the circle. As the leader of the National
party he became the ally of Clericalism, and the defender of
ecclesiastical privilege. Being a man of unrivalled capacity
for directing public affairs and enforcing party discipline,
he has established a highly centralized military government
without incurring unpopularity by remaining constantly in
sight and openly exercising authority. ... Strong government
has not been without its advantages; but the system can hardly
be considered either republican or democratic. ... Of all the
travesties of popular government which have been witnessed in
Spanish America, the political play enacted in Bogotá and
Cartagena is the most grotesque. Dr. Nuñez is known as the
titular President of the Republic. His practice is to go to
the capital at the beginning of the presidential term, and
when he has taken the oath of office to remain there a few
weeks until all matters of policy and discipline are arranged
among his followers. He then retires to his country-seat in
Cartagena, leaving the vice-President to bear the burdens of
state."
I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 12.
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1892.
Re-election of President Nuñez.
In 1892, Dr. Rafael Nuñez was elected President for a fourth
term, the term of office being six years.
Statesman's Year-book, 1893.
----------COLOMBIAN STATES: End----------
COLONI.
See DEDITITIUS.
COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.
Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus and the mother of Nero,
founded on the Rhine the Colonia Agrippinensis (modern
Cologne)--probably the only colony of Roman veterans ever
established under female auspices. The site had been
previously occupied by a village of the Ubii. "It is curious
that this abnormal colony has, alone, of all its kindred
foundations, retained to the present day the name of Colonia."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 50.
COLONIA, URUGUAY.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
COLONIZATION SOCIETY, The American.
See SLAVERY, Negro: A. D. 1816-1847.
COLONNA, The.
See Roman: 13TH-14TH CENTURIES,
and A. D. 1347-1354;
also PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
COLONUS, The.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
COLORADO: A. D. 1803-1848.
Acquisition of the eastern part in the Louisiana Purchase and
the western part from Mexico.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803; and MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.
Early explorations.
Gold discoveries.
Territorial and state organization.
The first American explorer to penetrate to the mountains of
Colorado was Lieutenant Zebulon Pike, sent out with a small
party by General Wilkinson, in 1806. He approached within 15
miles of the Rocky Mountain Peak which bears his name. A more
extensive official exploration of the country was made in 1819
by Major Stephen H. Long, whose report upon the whole region
drained by the Missouri, Arkansas and Platte rivers and their
tributaries was unfavorable and discouraging. Fremont's
explorations, which touched Colorado, were made in 1843-44.
"The only persons encountered in the Rocky mountains by
Frémont at this time were the few remaining traders and their
former employees, now their colonists, who lived with their
Mexican and Indian wives and half-breed children in a
primitive manner of life, usually under the protection of some
defensive structure called a fort.
{489}
The first American families in Colorado were a part of the
Mormon battalion of 1846, who, with their wives and children,
resided at Pueblo from September to the spring and summer of
the following year, when they joined the Mormon emigration to
Salt Lake. ... Measures were taken early in March, 1847, to
select locations for two United States forts between the
Missouri and the Rocky mountains, the sites selected being
those now occupied by Kearney City and Fort Laramie. ... Up to
1853 Colorado's scant population still lived in or near some
defensive establishment, and had been decreasing rather than
increasing for the past decade, owing to the hostility of the
Indians." In 1858 the first organized searching or prospecting
for gold in the region was begun by a party of Cherokee
Indians and whites. Other parties soon followed; the search
succeeded; and the Pike's Peak mining region was speedily
swarming with eager adventurers. In the fall of 1858 two rival
towns were laid out on the opposite sides of Cherry Creek.
They were named respectively Auraria and Denver. The struggle
for existence between them was bitter, but brief. Auraria
succumbed and Denver survived, to become the metropolis of the
Mountains. The first attempt at political organization was
made at the Auraria settlement, in November, 1858, and took
the form of a provisional territorial organization, under the
name of the Territory of Jefferson; but the provisional
government did not succeed in establishing its authority,
opposed as it was by conflicting claims to territorial
jurisdiction on the part of Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Dakota. At length, on the 28th of February,
1861, an act of Congress became law, by which the proposed new
territory was duly created, but not bearing the name of
Jefferson. "The name of Colorado was given to it at the
suggestion of the man selected for its first governor. ...
'Some,' says Gilpin, 'wanted it called Jefferson, some
Arcadia. ... I said the people have to a great extent named
the States after the great rivers of the country ... and the
great feature of that country is the great Colorado river.'"
Remaining in the territorial condition until July 1876,
Colorado was then admitted to the Union as a state.
H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
volume 20: Colorado, chapter 2-6.
----------COLORADO: End----------
COLOSSEUM, OR COLISEUM, The.
"The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, was built by
Vespasian and Titus in the lowest part of the valley between
the Cælean and Esquiline Hills, which was then occupied by a
large artificial pool for naval fights ('Naumachia'). ... The
exact date of the commencement of the Colosseum is doubtful,
but it was opened for use in A. D. 80. ... As built by the
Flavian Emperors the upper galleries ('mœniani') were of wood,
and these, as in the case of the Circus Maximus, at many times
caught fire from lightning and other causes, and did much
damage to the stone-work of the building."
J. H. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1885, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Parker. Archaeology of Rome, part 7.
R Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 9, part 2.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 70-96.
COLOSSUS OF RHODES.
See RHODES.
COLUMBAN CHURCH, The.
The church, or the organization of Christianity, in Scotland,
which resulted from the labors of the Irish missionary,
Columba, in the sixth century, and which spread from the great
monastery that he founded on the little island of Iona, or Ia,
or Hii, near the greater island of Mull. The church of
Columba, "not only for a time embraced within its fold the
whole of Scotland north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and
was for a century and a half the national church of Scotland,
but was destined to give to the Angles of Northumbria the same
form of Christianity for a period of thirty years." It
represented some differences from the Roman church which two
centuries of isolation had produced in the Irish church, from
which it sprang.
W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
Count de Montalembert,
The Monks of the West, book 9 (volume 3).
G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Celts,
chapter 7-10.
See CHRISTIANITY: 5TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 597-800.
COLUMBIA, The District of.
See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.
COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1850.
Abolition of slave-trade in.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1867.
Extension of suffrage to the Negroes.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (JANUARY).
----------COLUMBIA, The District of: End----------
COLUMBIA, S. C., The burning of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
COLUMBIA, Tennessee., Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, The World's.
See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.
also C. D. Arnold, Author H. D. Higinbotham,
Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition,
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847
COLUMBIAN ORDER, The.
See TAMMANY SOCIETY.
COLUMBUS, Voyages of.
See AMERICA: A. D.1484-1492; 1492; 1493-1496; 1498-1505.
COMANA.
Comana, an ancient city of Cappadocia, on the river Sarus
(Sihoon) was the seat of a priesthood, in the temple of Enyo,
or Bellona, so venerated, so wealthy and so powerful that the
chief priest of Comana counted among the great Asiatic
dignitaries in the time of Cæsar.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Rep., 'volume 5, chapter 22.
COMANCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
SNOSHONEAN FAMILY, and KIOWAN FAMILY,
and APACHE GROUP.
COMANS, The.
See KIPCHAKS; PATCHINAKS; COSSACKS,
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
COMBAT, Judicial.
See WAGER OF BATTLE.
COMES LITTORIS SAXONICI.
See SAXON SHORE, COUNT OF.
COMES PALATII.
See PALATINE COUNTS.
COMITATUS.--COMITES.--GESITHS.--THEGNS.
Comitatus is the name given by Tacitus to a body of warlike
companions among the ancient Germans "who attached themselves
in the closest manner to the chieftain of their choice. They
were in many cases the sons of the nobles who were ambitious
of renown or of a perfect education in arms. The princeps
provided for them horses, arms, and such rough equipment as
they wanted. These and plentiful entertainment were accepted
instead of wages. In time of war the comites fought for their
chief, at once his defenders and the rivals of his prowess.
... In the times of forced and unwelcome rest they were
thoroughly idle; they cared neither for farming nor for
hunting, but spent the time in feasting and in sleep. ...
{490}
Like the Frank king, the Anglo-Saxon king seems to have
entered on the full possession of what had been the right of
the elective principes [to nominate and maintain a comitatus,
to which he could give territory and political power]: but the
very principle of the comitatus had undergone a change from
what it was in the time of Tacitus, when it reappears in our
historians, and it seems to have had in England a peculiar
development and a bearing of special importance on the
constitution. In Tacitus the comites are the personal
following of the princeps; they live in his house, are
maintained by his gifts, fight for him in the field. If there
is little difference between companions and servants, it is
because civilization has not yet introduced voluntary
helplessness. ... Now the king, the perpetual princeps and
representative of the race, conveys to his personal following
public dignity and importance. His gesiths and thegns are
among the great and wise men of the land. The right of having
such dependents is not restricted to him, but the gesith of
the ealdorman or bishop is simply a retainer, a pupil or a
ward: the free household servants of the ceorl are in a
certain sense his gesiths also. But the gesiths of the king
are his guard and private council; they may be endowed by him
from the folkland and admitted by him to the witenagemot. ...
The Danish huscarls of Canute are a late reproduction of what
the familia of the Northumbrian kings must have been in the
eighth century. ... The development of the comitatus into a
territorial nobility seems to be a feature peculiar to English
history. ... The Lombard gasind, and the Bavarian sindman were
originally the same thing as the Anglo-Saxon gesith. But they
sank into the general mass of vassalage as it grew up in the
ninth and tenth centuries. ... Closely connected with the
gesith is the thegn; so closely that it is scarcely possible
to see the difference except in the nature of the employment.
The thegn seems to be primarily the warrior gesith; in this
idea Alfred uses the word as translating the 'miles' of Bede.
He is probably the gesith who has a particular military duty
in his master's service: But he also appears as a landowner.
The ceorl who has acquired five hides of land, and a special
appointment in the king's hall, with other judicial rights,
becomes thegn-worthy. ... And from this point, the time of
Athelstan, the gesith is lost sight of, except very
occasionally; the more important members of the class having
become thegns, and the lesser sort sinking into the ranks of
mere servants to the king. The class of thegns now widens; on
the one hand the name is given to all who possess the proper
quantity of land, whether or no they stand in the old relation
to the king; on the other the remains of the old nobility
place themselves in the king's service. The name of thegn
covers the whole class which after the Conquest appears under
the name of knights, with the same qualification in land and
nearly the same obligations. It also carried so much of
nobility as is implied in hereditary privilege. The thegn-born
are contrasted with the ceorl-born; and are perhaps much the
same as the gesithcund. ... Under the name of thegn are
included however various grades of dignity. The class of
king's thegns is distinguished from that of the medial thegns,
and from a residuum that falls in rank below the latter. ...
The very name, like that of the gesith, has different senses
in different ages and kingdoms; but the original idea of
military service runs through all the meanings of thegn, as
that of personal association is traceable in all the
applications of gesith."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 2, section 14 and chapter 6, section 63-65.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 7.
See, also, COUNT AND DUKE.
COMITIA CENTURIATA.
"Under the original constitution of Rome, the patricians alone
... enjoyed political rights in the state, but at the same
time they were forced to bear the whole burden of political
duties. In these last were included, for example, the tilling
of the king's fields, the construction of public works and
buildings; ... citizens alone, also, were liable to service in
the army. ... The political burdens, especially those
connected with the army, grew heavier, naturally, as the power
of Rome increased, and it was seen to be an injustice that one
part of the people, and that, too, the smaller part, should
alone feel their weight. This led to the first important
modification of the Roman constitution, which was made even
before the close of the regal period. According to tradition,
its author was the king Servius Tullius, and its general
object was to make all men who held land in the state liable
to military service. It thus conferred no political rights on
the plebeians, but assigned to them their share of political
duties. ... According to tradition, all the freeholders in the
city between the ages of 17 and 60, with some exceptions, were
divided, without distinction as to birth, into five classes
('classis,' 'a summoning,' 'calo') for service in the infantry
according to the size of their estates. Those who were
excepted served as horsemen. These were selected from among
the very richest men in the state. ... Of the five classes of
infantry, the first contained the richest men. ... The members
of the first class were required to come to the battle array
in complete armor, while less was demanded of the other four.
Each class was subdivided into centuries or bodies of a
hundred men each, for convenience in arranging the army. There
were in all 193 centuries. ... This absolute number and this
apportionment were continued, as the population increased and
the distribution of wealth altered, until the name century
came to have a purely conventional meaning, even if it had any
other in the beginning. Henceforth a careful census was taken
every fourth year, and all freeholders were made subject to
the 'tributum.' The arrangement of the people thus described
was primarily made simply for military purposes. ...
Gradually, however, this organization came to have political
significance, until finally these men, got together for what
is the chief political duty in a primitive state, enjoyed what
political privileges there were. ... In the end, this
'exercitus' of Servius Tullius formed another popular
assembly, the Comitia Centuriata, which supplanted the comitia
curiata entirely, except in matters connected with the
religion of the family and very soon of purely formal
significance. This organization, therefore, became of the
highest civil importance, and was continued for civil purposes
long after the army was marshalled on quite another plan."
A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Const., chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 1
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 4.
{491}
COMITIA CURIATA.
"In the beginning, any member of any one of the clans which
were included in the three original Roman tribes, was a Roman
citizen. So, too, were his children born in lawful wedlock,
and those who were adopted by him according to the forms of
law. Illegitimate children, on the other hand, were excluded
from the number of citizens. These earliest Romans called
themselves patricians (patricii, children of their fathers'),
for some reason about which we cannot be sure. Perhaps it was
in order to distinguish themselves from their illegitimate
kinsmen and from such other people as lived about, having no
pretense of blood connection with them, and who were,
therefore, incapable of contracting lawful marriages,
according to the patrician's view of this religious ceremony.
The patricians ... were grouped together in families, clans
and tribes, partly on the basis of blood relationship, but
chiefly on the basis of common religious worship. Besides
these groups, there was still another in the state, the curia,
or 'ward,' which stood between the clan and the tribe. In the
earliest times, tradition said, ten families formed a clan,
ten clans a curia and ten curiæ a tribe. These numbers, if
they ever had any historical existence, could not have
sustained themselves for any length of time in the case of the
clans and families, for such organisms of necessity would
increase and decrease quite irregularly. About the nature of
the curia we have practically no direct information. The
organization had become a mere name at an early period in the
city's history. Whether the members of a curia thought of
themselves as having closer kinship with one another than with
members of other curiæ is not clear. We know, however, that
the curiæ were definite political sub-divisions of the city,
perhaps like modern wards, and that each curia had a common
religious worship for its members' participation. Thus much,
at any rate, is significant, because it has to do with the
form of Rome's primitive popular assembly. When the king
wanted to harangue the people ('populus,' cf. 'populor,' 'to
devastate') he called them to a 'contio' (compounded of 'co'
and 'venio'). But if he wanted to propose to them action which
implied a change in the organic law of the state, he summoned
them to a comitia (compounded of 'con' and 'eo'). To this the
name comitia curiata was given, because its members voted by
curiæ. Each curia had one vote, the character of which was
determined by a majority of its members, and a majority of the
curiæ decided the matter for the comitia."
A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Const., chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 5.
F. De Coulanges, The Ancient City,
book 3, ch.. 1, and book 4 chapter 1.
See, also, COMITIA CENTURIATA, and CONTIONES.
COMITIA TRIBUTA, The.
See ROME: B. C. 472-471.
COMMAGENE, Kingdom of.
A district of northern Syria, between Cilicia and the
Euphrates, which acquired independence during the disorders
which broke up the empire of the Seleucidæ, and was a separate
kingdom during the last century B. C. It was afterwards made a
Roman province. Its capital was Samosata.
COMMENDATION.
See BENEFICIUM
COMMERCIUM.
See MUNICIPIUM.
COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
The French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),
and (JUNE-OCTOBER).
COMMITTEE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MATCH: VIRGINIA).
COMMODUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 180-192.
COMMON LAW, English.
"The municipal law of England, or the rule of civil conduct
prescribed to the inhabitants of this kingdom, may with
sufficient propriety be divided into two kinds; the 'lex non
scripta,' the unwritten or common law; and the 'lex scripta,'
the written or statute law. The 'lex non scripta,' or
unwritten law, includes not only general customs, or the
common law properly so called, but also the particular customs
of certain parts of the kingdom; and likewise those particular
laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and
jurisdictions. When I call these parts of our law 'leges non
scriptre,' I would not be understood as if all those laws were
at present merely oral, or communicated from the former ages
to the present solely by word of mouth. ... But, with us at
present, the monuments and evidences of our legal customs are
contained in the records of the several courts of justice, in
books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises
of learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down
to us from the times of highest antiquity. However, I
therefore style these parts of our law 'leges non scriptre,'
because their original institution and authority are not set
down in writing, as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive
their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and
immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout
the kingdom."
Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
introduction, section 3.
ALSO IN:
H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, chapter 1.
J. N. Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law,
sections. 37-42.
COMMON LOT, OR COMMON LIFE, Brethren of the.
See BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT.
"COMMON SENSE" (Paine's Pamphlet),
The influence of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).
COMMONS, The.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
COMMONS, House of.
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,
and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.
COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND, Establishment of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
COMMUNE, The.
The commonalty; the commons. In feudal usage, the term
signified, as defined by Littré, the body of the bourgeois or
burghers of a town who had received a charter which gave them
rights of self-government. "In France the communal
constitution was during this period (12th century) encouraged,
although not very heartily, by Lewis VI., who saw in it one
means of fettering the action of the barons and bishops and
securing to himself the support of a strong portion of his
people. In some cases the commune of France is, like the
guild, a voluntary association, but its objects are from the
first more distinctly political. In some parts of the kingdom
the towns had risen against their lords in the latter half of
the eleventh century, and had retained the fruits of their
hard-won victories.
{492}
In others, they possessed, in the
remaining fragments of the Karolingian constitution, some
organisation that formed a basis for new liberties. The great
number of charters granted in the twelfth century shows that
the policy of encouraging the third estate was in full sway in
the royal councils, and the king by ready recognition of the
popular rights gained the affections of the people to an
extent which has few parallels in French history. The French
charters are in both style and substance very different from
the English. The liberties which are bestowed are for the most
part the same, exemption from arbitrary taxation, the right to
local jurisdiction, the privilege of enfranchising the villein
who has been for a year and a day received within the walls,
and the power of electing the officers. But whilst all the
English charters contain a confirmation of free and good
customs, the French are filled with an enumeration of bad
ones. ... The English have an ancient local constitution the
members of which are the recipients of the new grant, and
guilds of at least sufficient antiquity to render their
confirmation typical of the freedom now guaranteed; French
communia is a new body which, by the action of a sworn
confederacy, has wrung from its oppressors a deliverance from
hereditary bondage. ... The commune lacks too the ancient
element of festive religious or mercantile association which
is so conspicuous in the history of the guild. The idea of the
latter is English, that of the former is French or Gallic. Yet
notwithstanding these differences, the substantial identity of
the privileges secured by these charters seems to prove the
existence of much international sympathy. The ancient
liberties of the English were not unintelligible to the
townsmen of Normandy; the rising freedom of the German cities
roused a corresponding ambition in the towns of Flanders; and
the struggles of the Italian municipalities awoke the energies
of the cities of Provence. All took different ways to win the
same liberties. ... The German Hansa may have been derived
from England; the communa of London was certainly derived from
France. ... The communa of London, and of those other English
towns which in the twelfth century aimed at such a
constitution, was the old English guild in a new French garb:
it was the ancient association, but directed to the attainment
of municipal rather than mercantile privileges."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11.
"Oppression and insurrection were not the sole origin of the
communes. ... Two causes, quite distinct from feudal
oppression, viz., Roman traditions and Christian sentiments,
had their share in the formation of the communes and in the
beneficial results thereof. The Roman municipal regimen, which
is described in M. Guizot's 'Essais sur l'Histoire de France'
(1st Essay, pages 1-44), [also in 'History of Civilization,' volume
2, lecture 2] did not every where perish with the Empire; it
kept its footing in a great number of towns, especially in
those of Southern Gaul."
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 19.
ALSO IN:
Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125;
also, CURIA, MUNICIPAL,
and GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
COMMUNE, The Flemish.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
COMMUNE OF PARIS,
The Revolutionary, of 1792.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST).
The rebellion of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (MARCH-MAY).
----------COMMUNE OF PARIS: End----------
COMMUNE, The Russian.
See MIR.
COMMUNE, The Swiss.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
COMMUNEROS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
COMNENIAN DYNASTY.
The dynasty of Byzantine emperors founded, A. D. 1081, by
Alexius Comnenos, and consisting of Alexius I., John II.,
Manuel 1., Alexius II., and Andronicus I., who was murdered A.
D. 1185.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
COMPAGNACCI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
COMPASS, Introduction of the Mariner's.
"It is perhaps impossible to ascertain the epoch when the
polarity of the magnet was first known in Europe. The common
opinion which ascribes its discovery to a citizen of Amalfi in
the 14th century, is undoubtedly erroneous. Guiot de Provins,
a French poet who lived about the year 1200, or, at the
latest, under St. Louis, describes it in the most unequivocal
language. James de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine, before the
middle of the 13th century, and Guido Guinizzelli, an Italian
poet of the same time, are equally explicit. The French, as
well as Italians, claim the discovery as their own; but
whether it were due to either of these nations, or rather
learned from their intercourse with the Saracens, is not
easily to be ascertained. ... It is a singular circumstance,
and only to be explained by the obstinacy with which men are
apt to reject improvements, that the magnetic needle was not
generally adopted in navigation till very long after the
discovery of its properties, and even after their peculiar
importance had been perceived. The writers of the 13th
century, who mention the polarity of the needle, mention also
its use in navigation; yet Capmany has found no distinct proof
of its employment till 1403, and does not believe that it was
frequently on board Mediterranean ships at the latter part of
the preceding age."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 2, with note.
"Both Chaucer, the English, and Barbour, the Scottish, poet,
allude familiarly to the compass in the latter part of the
14th century."
G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce, volume 1, page 138.
"We have no certain information of the directive tendency of
the natural magnet being known earlier than the middle or end
of the 11th century (in Europe, of course). ... That it was
known at this date and its practical value recognized, is
shown by a passage from an Icelandic historian, quoted by
Hanstien in his treatise of Terrestrial Magnetism. In this
extract an expedition from Norway to Iceland in the year 868
is described; and it is stated that three ravens were taken as
guides, for, adds the historian, 'in those times seamen had no
loadstone in the northern countries.' This history was written
about the year A. D. 1068, and the allusion I have quoted
obviously shows that the author was aware of natural magnets
having been employed as a compass. At the same time it fixes a
limit of the discovery in northern countries. We find no
mention of artificial magnets being so employed till about a
century later."
Sir W. Thompson, quoted by R. F. Burton in Ultima Thule,
volume 1, page 312.
{493}
COMPIEGNE: Capture of the Maid of Orleans (1430).
See FRANCE. A. D. 1429-1431.
COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
COMPROMISE, The Crittenden.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
COMPROMISE, The Flemish, of 1565.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
COMPROMISE, The Missouri.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
COMPROMISE TARIFF OF 1833, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
COMPURGATION.
Among the Teutonic and other peoples, in early times, one
accused of a crime might clear himself by his own oath,
supported by the oaths of certain compurgators, who bore
witness to his trustworthiness.
See WAGER OF LAW.
COMSTOCK LODE, Discovery of the.
See NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
COMUM, Battle of (B. C. 196).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
CONCIONES, The Roman.
See CONTIONES, THE.
CONCON, Battle of (1891).
See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.
CONCORD.
Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
CONCORDAT OF NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
CONCORDAT OF 1813, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
CONDÉ, The first Prince Louis de, and the French wars of religion.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, and 1563-1570.
CONDÉ, The Second Prince Louis de (called The Great).
Campaigns in the Thirty Years War, and the war with Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; 1643;
GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644.
In the wars of the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.
Campaigns against France in the service of Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656, and 1655-1658.
Last campaigns.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674 and 1674-1678.
CONDÉ, The House of.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF,
CONDÉ: A. D. 1793.-Siege and capture by the Austrians.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).
CONDÉ: A. D. 1794.
Recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
----------CONDÉ: End----------
CONDORE, OR KONDUR, Battle of (1758).
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
CONDOTTIERE.
In the general meaning of the word, a conductor or leader;
applied specially, in Italian history, to the professional
military leaders of the 13th and 14th centuries, who made a
business of war very much as a modern contractor makes a
business of railroad construction, and who were open to
engagement, with the troops at their command, by any prince,
or any free city whose offers were satisfactory.
CONDRUSI, The.
See BELGÆ.
CONESTOGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
CONFEDERACY OF DELOS, OR THE DELIAN.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477,
and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
Constitution and organization of the government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
CONFEDERATION, Articles of (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.
CONFEDERATION, Australian.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.
CONFEDERATION, The Germanic,
of 1814.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
Of 1870.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
CONFEDERATION, The North German.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
CONFEDERATION, The Swiss.
See SWITZERLAND.
CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH AMERICAN PROVINCES.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
CONFEDERATION OF THE RHINE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
and 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
also, FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
CONFLANS, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
CONFUCIANISM.
See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
CONGO FREE STATE, The Founding of the.
"Since Leopold II.'s accession to the throne [of Belgium], his
great object has been to secure colonial possessions to
Belgium for her excess of population and production. To this
end he founded, in October, 1876, with the aid of eminent
African explorers, the International African Association. Its
object was to form committees in several countries, with a
view to the collection of funds, and to the establishment of a
chain of stations across Africa, passing by Lake Tanganyika,
to assist future explorers. Accordingly committees were
formed, whose presidents were as follows: in England, the
Prince of Wales; in Germany the Crown Prince; in Italy the
King's brother; in France, M. de Lesseps; and in Belgium, King
Leopold. Sums of money were subscribed, and stations were
opened from Bagomoyo (just south of Zanzibar) to Lake
Tanganyika; but when toward the close of 1877, Stanley
reappeared on the Atlantic coast and revealed the immense
length of the marvelous Congo River, King Leopold at once
turned his attention in that direction. That he might not put
himself forward prematurely, he acted under cover of an
association and a committee of exploration, which were in
reality formed and entirely supported by the King's energy and
by the large sums of money that he lavished upon them. Through
this association King Leopold maintained Stanley for five
years on the Congo. During this time a road was made from the
coast to Stanley Pool, where the navigable portion of the
Upper Congo commences; and thus was formed the basis of the
future empire. During this period Stanley signed no less than
four thousand treaties or concessions of territory, on which
upward of two thousand chiefs had placed their marks in sign
of adhesion.
{494}
At a cost of many months of transportation, necessitating the
employment of thousands of porters, light steamers were placed
on the upper river which was explored as far as Stanley Falls.
Its numerous tributaries also were followed up as far as the
rapids that interrupt their courses. Many young Belgian
officers and other adventurous explorers established
themselves on the banks of the Congo and the adjoining river,
the Kouiliou, and founded a series of stations, each occupied
by one or two Europeans and by a few soldiers from Zanzibar.
In this way the country was insensibly taken possession of in
the most pacific manner, without a struggle and with no
bloodshed whatever; for the natives, who are of a very gentle
disposition, offered no resistance. The Senate of the United
States, which was called upon, in 1884, to give an opinion on
the rights of the African Association, made a careful
examination of the matter, and recognized the legality of the
claims and title deeds submitted to them. A little later, in
order to mark the formation of a state, the Congo Association
adopted as its flag a gold star on a blue ground. A French
lawyer. M. Deloume, in a very well-written pamphlet entitled
'Le Droit des Gens dans l'Afrique Equatoriale,' has proved
that this proceeding was not only legitimate, but necessary.
The embryo state, however, lacked one essential thing, namely,
recognition by the civilized powers. It existed only as a
private association, or, as a hostile publicist expressed it,
as 'a state in shares, indulging in pretensions of
sovereignty.' Great difficulties stood in the way of realizing
this essential condition. Disputes, on the one hand with
France and on the other with Portugal, appeared inevitable.
... King Leopold did not lose heart. In 1882 he obtained from
the French government an assurance that, while maintaining its
rights to the north of Stanley Pool, it would give support to
the International Association of the Congo. With Portugal it
seemed very difficult to come to an understanding. ... Prince
Bismarck took part in the matter, and in the German Parliament
praised highly the work of the African Association. In April,
1884, he proposed to France to come to an understanding, and
to settle all difficulties by general agreement. From this
proposition sprang the famous Berlin conference, the
remarkable decisions of which we shall mention later. At the
same time, before the conference opened, Germany signed an
agreement with the International Association of the Congo, in
which she agreed to recognize its flag as that of a state, in
exchange for an assurance that her trade should be free, and
that German subjects should enjoy all the privileges of the
most favored nations. Similar agreements were entered upon
with nearly all the other countries of the globe. The
delegates of the Association were accepted at the conference
on the same footing as those of the different states that were
represented there, and on February 26, the day on which the
act was signed, Bismarck expressed himself as follows: 'The
new State of the Congo is destined to be one of the chief
safe-guards of the work we have in view, and I sincerely trust
that its development will fulfill the noble aspirations of its
august founder.' Thus the Congo International Association,
hitherto only a private enterprise, seemed now to be
recognized as a sovereign state, without having, however, as
yet assumed the title. But where were the limits of its
territory. ... Thanks to the interference of France, after
prolonged negotiations an understanding was arrived at on
February 15, 1885, by which both parties were satisfied. They
agreed that Portugal should take possession of the southern
bank of the Congo, up to its junction with the little stream
Uango, above Nokki, and also of the district of Kabinda
forming a wedge that extends into the French territory on the
Atlantic Ocean. The International Congo Association--for such
was still its title--was to have access to the sea by a strip
of land extending from Manyanga (west of Leopoldville) to the
ocean, north of Banana, and comprising in addition to this
port, Boma and the important station of Vivi. These treaties
granted the association 931,285 square miles of territory,
that is to say, a domain eighty times the size of Belgium,
with more than 7,500 miles of navigable rivers. The limits
fixed were, on the west, the Kuango, an important tributary of
the Congo; on the south, the sources of the Zambesi; on the
east, the Lakes Bangweolo, Moero, and Tanganyika, and a line
passing through Lake Albert Edward to the river Ouelle; on the
north, a line following the fourth degree of latitude to the
Mobangi River on the French frontier. The whole forms one
eleventh part of the African continent. The association became
transformed into a state in August 1885, when King Leopold,
with the authorization of the Belgian Chambers, notified the
powers that he should assume the title of Sovereign of the
Independent State of the Congo, the union of which with
Belgium was to be exclusively personal. The Congo is,
therefore, not a Belgian colony, but nevertheless the Belgian
Chambers have recently given valuable assistance to the King's
work; first, in taking, on July 26, 1889, 10,000,000 francs'
worth of shares in the railway which is to connect the seaport
of Matadi with the riverport of Leopoldville, on Stanley Pool,
and secondly by granting a loan of 25,000,000 francs to the
Independent State on August 4, 1890. The King, in a will laid
before Parliament, bequeaths all his African possessions to
the Belgian nation, authorizing the country to take possession
of them after a lapse of ten years."
E. de Laveleye, The Division of Africa
(The Forum, January, 1891).
ALSO IN:
H. M. Stanley, The Congo, and the Founding of its Free
State.
CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY, The.
"Philip of Neri, a young Florentine of good birth (1515-1595;
canonised 1622) ... in 1548 instituted at Rome the Society of
the Holy Trinity, to minister to the wants of the pilgrims at
Rome. But the operations of his mission gradually extended
till they embraced the spiritual welfare of the Roman
population at large, and the reformation of the Roman clergy
in particular. No figure is more serene and more sympathetic
to us in the history of the Catholic reaction than that of
this latter-day 'apostle of Rome.' From his association, which
followed the rule of St. Augustine, sprang in 1575 the
Congregation of the Oratory at Rome, famous as the seminary of
much that is most admirable in the labours of the Catholic
clergy."
A. W. Ward, The Counter-Reformation, page 30.
{495}
"In the year 1766, there were above a hundred Congregations of
the Oratory of S. Philip in Europe and the East Indies; but
since the revolutions of the last seventy years many of these
have ceased to exist, while, on the contrary, within the last
twelve years two have been established in England."
Mrs. Hope, Life of S. Philip Neri, chapter 24.
ALSO IN:
H. L. S. Lear, Priestly Life in France, chapter 4.
CONGREGATIONALISM.
See INDEPENDENTS.
CONGRESS, Colonial, at Albany.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
CONGRESS, Continental,
The First.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
The Second.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).
CONGRESS, The First American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
CONGRESS, The Pan-American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
CONGRESS, The Stamp Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, The.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS AND TREATY.
CONGRESS OF BERLIN.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
CONGRESS OF PANAMA.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
CONGRESS OF PARIS.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856,
and DECLARATION OF PARIS.
CONGRESS OF RASTADT, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
CONGRESS OF VERONA, The.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
CONGRESS OF VIENNA.
See VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
"The Constitution created Congress and conferred upon it
powers of legislation for national purposes, but made no
provision as to the method by which these powers should be
exercised. In consequence Congress has itself developed a
method of transacting its business by means of committees. The
Federal Legislature consists of two Houses--the Senate, or
Upper and less numerous branch, and the House of
Representatives, or the Lower and more numerous popular
branch. The Senate is composed of two members from each State
elected by the State legislatures for a term of six years, one
third of whom retire every two years. The presiding officer is
the Vice-President. Early in each session the Senate chooses a
President pro tempore, so as to provide for any absence of the
Vice-President, whether caused by death, sickness, or for
other reasons. The House of Representatives is at present
[1891] composed of 332 members and four delegates from the
Territories. These delegates, however, have no vote, though
they may speak. The House is presided over by a Speaker,
elected at the beginning of each [Congress]. A quorum for
business is, in either House, a majority. Congress meets every
year in the beginning of December. Each Congress lasts two
years and holds two sessions--a long and a short session. The
long session lasts from December to midsummer [or until the
two Houses agree upon an adjournment]. The short session lasts
from December, when Congress meets again, until the 4th of
March. The term of office then expires for all the members of
the House and for one-third of the Senators. The long session
ends in even years (1880 and 1882, etc.), and the short
session in odd years (1881 and 1883). Extra sessions may be
called by the President for urgent business. In the early part
of the November preceding the end of the short session of
Congress occurs the election of Representatives. Congressmen
then elected do not take their seats until thirteen months
later, that is, at the reassembling of Congress in December of
the year following, unless an extra session is called. The
Senate frequently holds secret, or, as they are called,
executive sessions, for the consideration of treaties and
nominations of the President, in which the House of
Representatives has no voice. It is then said to sit with
closed doors. An immense amount of business must necessarily
be transacted by a Congress that legislates for nearly
63,000,000 of people. ... Lack of time, of course, prevents a
consideration of each bill separately by the whole
legislature. To provide a means by which each subject may
receive investigation and consideration, a plan is used by
which the members of both branches of Congress are divided
into committees. Each committee busies itself with a certain
class of business, and bills when introduced are referred to
this or that committee for consideration, according to the
subjects to which the bills relate. ... The Senate is now
divided between 50 and 60 committees, but the number varies
from session to session. ... The House of Representatives is
organized into 60 committees [appointed by the Speaker],
ranging, in their number of members, from thirteen down. ...
The Committee of Ways and Means, which regulates customs
duties and excise taxes, is by far the most important. ...
Congress ordinarily assembles at noon and remains in session
until 4 or 5 P. M., though towards the end of the term it
frequently remains in session until late in the night. ...
There is still one feature of Congressional government which
needs explanation, and that is the caucus. A caucus is the
meeting of the members of one party in private, for the
discussion of the attitude and line of policy which members of
that party are to take on questions which are expected to
arise in the legislative halls. Thus, in Senate caucus, is
decided who shall be members of the various committees. In
these meetings is frequently discussed whether or not the
whole party shall vote for or against this or that important
bill, and thus its fate is decided before it has even come up
for debate in Congress."
W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and
Administration of the U. S. (Johns Hopkins University
Studies, series ix., numbers 1-2), chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
W. Wilson, Congressional Government, chapter 2-4.
J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth,
part 1, chapter 10-21 (volume l).
A. L. Dawes, How we are Governed, chapter 2.
The Federalist, numbers. 51-65.
J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitutional of the
United States, book 3, chapters 8-31 (volumes 2-3).
CONI.
Sieges (1744 and 1799).
See ITALY: A. D. 1744;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
CONIBO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
CONNAUGHT, Transplantation of the Irish people into.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
{496}
CONNECTICUT: The River and the Name.
"The first discoveries made of this part of New England were
of its principal river and the fine meadows lying upon its
bank. Whether the Dutch at New Netherlands, or the people of
New Plymouth, were the first discoverers of the river is not
certain. Both the English and the Dutch claimed to be the
first discoverers, and both purchased and made a settlement of
the lands upon it nearly at the same time. ... From this fine
river, which the Indians call Quonehtacut, or Connecticut, (in
English the long river) the colony originally took its name."
B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, chapter 2.
According to Dutch accounts, the river was entered by Adriaen
Block, ascended to latitude 41° 48', and named Fresh River, in
1614.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
CONNECTICUT: The Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.
The grant to Lord Say and Sele, and others.
In 1631, the Earl of Warwick granted to Lord Say and Sele,
Lord Brooke, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, "the
territory between Narragansett River and southwest towards New
York for 120 miles and west to the Pacific Ocean, or,
according to the words of President Clap of Yale College,
'from Point Judith to New York, and from thence a west line to
the South Sea, and if we take Narragansett River in its whole
length the tract will extend as far north as Worcester. It
comprehends the whole of the colony of Connecticut and more.
This was called the old patent of Connecticut, and had been
granted the previous year, 1630, by the Council of Plymouth
[or Council for New England] to the Earl of Warwick. Yet
before the English had planted settlements in Connecticut the
Dutch had purchased of the Pequots land where Hartford now
stands and erected a small trading fort called 'The House of
Good Hope.'"
C. W. Bowen, Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, page 15.
In 1635, four years after the Connecticut grant, said to have
been derived originally from the Council for New England, in
1630, had been transferred by the Earl of Warwick to Lord Say
and Seal and others, the Council made an attempt, in
connivance with the English court, to nullify all its grants,
to regain possession of the territory of New England and to
parcel it out by lot among its own members. In this attempted
parcelling, which proved ineffectual, Connecticut fell to the
lot of the Earl of Carlisle, the Duke of Lennox, and the Duke
of Hamilton. Modern investigation seems to have found the
alleged grant from the Council of Plymouth, or Council for New
England, to the Earl of Warwick, in 1630, to be mythical. "No
one has ever seen it, or has heard of anyone who claims to
have seen it. It is not mentioned even in the grant from
Warwick to the Say and Sele patentees in 1631. ... The deed is
a mere quit-claim, which warrants nothing and does not even
assert title to the soil transferred. ... Why the Warwick
transaction took this peculiar shape, why Warwick transferred,
without showing title, a territory which the original owners
granted anew to other patentees in 1635, are questions which
are beyond conjecture."
A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 2.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
The pioneer settlements.
"In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led by William
Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandying
threats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the
site of Hartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the
site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company
of seventy men to drive away these intruders, but after
reconnoitering the situation the Dutchmen thought it best not
to make an attack. Their little stronghold at Hartford
remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to secure
the communication between this advanced outpost and New
Amsterdam, Van Twiller decided to build another fort at the
mouth of the river, but this time the English were beforehand.
Rumours of Dutch designs may have reached the ears of Lord Say
and Sele and Lord Brooke--'fanatic Brooke,' as Scott calls him
in 'Marmion'--who had obtained from the Council for New
England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These
noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son
of the Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon
the scene just in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and
build an English fort which in honour of his two patrons he
called 'Say-Brooke.' Had it not been for seeds of discontent
already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the
Connecticut valley might perhaps have been for a few years
confined to these two military outposts at Windsor and
Saybrooke. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not
look with favour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features
of its polity. The provision that none but church-members
should vote or hold office was by no means unanimously
approved. ... Cotton declared that democracy was no fit
government either for church or for commonwealth, and the
majority of the ministers agreed with him. Chief among those
who did not was the learned and eloquent Thomas Hooker, pastor
of the church at Newtown. ... There were many in Newtown who
took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, as also in
Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative in
framing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition
was shown to evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While
such things were talked about, in the summer of 1633, the
adventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest
and over the mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when
he returned to the coast his glowing accounts set some people
to thinking. Two years afterward, a few pioneers from
Dorchester pushed through the wilderness as far as the
Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party from Watertown
went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield.
A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could
carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching
Windsor. ... In the next June, 1636, the Newtown congregation,
a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and
bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to
the Connecticut valley. Women and children took part in this
pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being
too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the
memorable year in which our great university was born, did
Cambridge become, in the true Greek sense of a much-abused
word, the metropolis or 'mother town' of Hartford. The
migration at once became strong in numbers.
{497}
During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from
England to Massachusetts more than 3,000 souls, and so great
an accession made further movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims
were soon followed by the Dorchester and Watertown
congregations, and by the next May 800 people were living in
Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of these
movements, not of individuals, but of organic communities,
united in allegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid
with the instinct of self-government, we seem to see Greek
history renewed, but with centuries of added political
training. For one year a board of commissioners from
Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the end of that
time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court
at Hartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut
was begun. As for Springfield, which was settled about the
same time by a party from Roxbury, it remained for some years
doubtful to which state it belonged."
J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England., chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 11.
G. L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford,
chapter 4-5.
M. A. Green, Springfield, 1636-1886, chapter 1.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.
The constitutional evolution.
"It must be noted that [the] Newtown, Watertown, and
Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple
transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. In
each of these migrations a part of the people was left behind,
so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to exist. And
yet each of them brought its Massachusetts magistrates, its
ministers (except Watertown), and all the political and
ecclesiastical machinery of the town; and at least one of them
(Dorchester) had hardly changed its structure since its
members first organized in 1630 at Dorchester in England. The
first settlement of Connecticut was thus the migration of
three distinct and individual town organizations out of the
jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into absolute freedom. It
was the Massachusetts town system set loose in the wilderness.
At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts
names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, February
21 1636 (7), that it was decided that the plantacon [c tilde]
nowe called Newtowne slalbe called & named by the name of
Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called
'Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild,' and the
plantacon [c tilde] called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor.'
On the same day the boundaries between the three towns were
'agreed' upon, and thus the germ of the future State was the
agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, the
subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637, for the
first time took the name of the 'Genrall Corte,' and was
composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had
previously held it, of 'comittees' of three from each town. So
simply and naturally did the migrated town system evolve, in
this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the Senate and
House of Representatives of the future State of Connecticut.
The Assembly further showed its consciousness of separate
existence by declaring 'an offensive warr ag' the Pequoitt,'
assigning the proportions of its miniature army and supplies
to each town, and appointing a commander. ... So complete are
the features of State-hood, that we may fairly assign May 1,
1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. No king, no
Congress, presided over the birth: its seed was in the towns.
January 14, 1638 (9), the little Commonwealth formed the first
American Constitution at Hartford. So far as its provisions
are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth Council,
the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might as well have
been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. ... This
constitution was not only the earliest but the longest in
continuance of American documents of the kind, unless we
except the Rhode Island charter. It was not essentially
altered by the charter of 1662, which was practically a royal
confirmation of it; and it was not until 1818 that the
charter, that is the constitution of 1639, was superseded by
the present constitution. Connecticut was as absolutely a
state in 1639 as in 1776."
A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11).
The following is the text of those "Fundamental Orders"
adopted by the people dwelling on Connecticut River, January
14, 1638 (9), which formed the first of written constitutions:
"FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise
disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of
things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor,
Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in
and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto
adioyueing; And well knowing where a people are gathered
togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace
and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and
decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and
dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as
occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne
our selues to be as one Publike State or ComonweIth; and doe,
for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be
adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination
and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and prsearue the
liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now
prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according
to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs;
As also in or Ciuell Affaires to be guided and gouerned
according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be
made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:--1. It is Ordered,
sentenced and decreed, that there shall be yerely two generall
Assemblies or Courts, the one the second thursday in Aprill,
the other the second thursday in September following; the
first shall be called the Courte of Election, wherein shall be
yerely Chosen fro tyme to tyme soe many Magestrats and other
publike Officers as shall be found requisitte: Whereof one to
be chosen Gouernour for the yeare ensueing and vntill another
be chosen, and noe other Magestrate to be chosen for more than
one yeare; pruided allwayes there be sixe chosen besids the
Gouernour; wch being chosen and sworne according to an Oath
recorded for that purpose shall haue power to administer
iustice according to the Lawes here established, and for want
thereof according to the rule of the word of God; wch choise
shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken
the Oath of Fidellity, and doe cohabitte wthin this
Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted Inhabitants by the maior
prt of the Towne wherein they liue,) or the mayor prte of such
as shall be then prsent.
{498}
2. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Election of
the aforesaid Magestrats shall be on this manner: euery prson
prsent and quallified for choyse shall bring in (to the prsons
deputed to receaue the) one single papr wth the name of him
written in yt whom he desires to haue Gouernour, and he that
hath the greatest nuber of papers shall be Gouernor for that
yeare. And the rest of the Magestrats or publike Officers to
be chosen in this manner: The Secretary for the tyme being
shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choise
and then shall seuerally nominate them distinctly, and euery
one that would haue the prson nominated to be chosen shall
bring in one single paper written vppon, and he that would not
haue him chosen shall bring in a blanke: and euery one that
hath more written papers then blanks shall be a Magistrat for
that yeare; wth papers shall be receaued and told by one or
more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworne to be
faythfull therein: but in case there should not be sixe chosen
as aforesaid, besids the Gouernor, out of those wch are
nominated, then he or they wch haue the most written paprs
shall be a Magestrate or Magestrats for the ensueing yeare, to
make up the foresaid nuber. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced and
decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any prson, nor
shall any prson be chosen newly into the Magestraey wch was
not prpownded in some Generall Courte before, to be nominated
the next Election; and to that end yt shall be lawfull for ech
of the Townes aforesaid by their deputyes to nominate any two
who they conceaue fitte to be put to election; and the Courte
may ad so many more as they, iudge requisitt. 4. It is
Ordered, sentenced and decreed that noe prson be chosen
Gouernor aboue once in two yeares, and that the Gouernor be
always a meber of some approved congregation, and formerly of
the Magestracy wthin this Jurisdiction; and all the Magestrats
Freemen of this Comonwelth: and that no Magestrate or other
publike officer shall execute any prte of his or their Office
before they are seuerally sworne, wch shall be done in the
face of the Courte if they be prsent, and in case of absence
by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, senteneed
and decreed, that to the aforesaid Courte of Election the
seurall Townes shall send their deputyes, and when the
Elections are ended they may prceed in any publike searuice as
at other Courts. Also the other Generall Courte in Septemher
shall be for makeing of lawes, and any other publike occation,
wch conserns the good of the Comonwelth. 6. It is Ordered,
sentenced and decreed, that the Gournor shall, ether by
himselfe or by the secretary, send out sumons to the
Constables of eur Towne for the cauleing of these two standing
Courts, on month at lest before their seu'all tymes: And also
if the Gournor and the gretest prte of the Magestmts see cause
vppon any spetiall occation to call a generall Courte, they
may giue order to the secretary soe to doe wthin fowerteene
dayes warneing; and if vrgent necessity so require, vppon a
shorter notice, giueing sufficient grownds for yt to the
deputyes when they meete, or els be questioned for the same;
And if the Gournor and Mayor prte of Magestrats shall ether
neglect or refuse to call the two Generall standing Courts or
ether of the, as also at other tymes when the occutions of the
Comonwelth require, the Freemen thereof, or the Mayor prte of
them, shall petition to them soe to doe: if then yt be ether
denyed or neglected the said Freemen or the Mayor prte of them
shall haue power to giue order to the Constables of the
seuerall Townes to doe the same, and so may meete togather,
and chuse to themselues a Moderator, and may prceed to do any
Acte of power, wch any other Generall Courte may. 7. It is
Ordered, sentenced and decreed that after there are warrants
giuen out for any of the suid Generall Courts, the Constable
or Constables of ech Towne shall forthwth give notice
distinctly, to the inhabitants of the same, in some Pubhke
Assembly or by goeing or sending fro howse to howse, that at a
place and tyme by him or them lymited and sett, they meet and
assemble the selues togather to elect and chuse certen
deputyes to be att the Generall Courte then following to
agitate the afayres of the comonwelth; wch said Deputyes shall
be choseu by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seurall
Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity; pruided that non
be chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte wch is not a
Freeman of this Comonwelth. The foresaid deputyes shall be
chosen in manner following; euery prson that is prsent and
quallified as before exprssed, shall bring thr names of such,
written in seurrall papers, as they desire to haue chosen for
that Imployment, and these 3 or 4, more or lesse, being the
nuber agreed on to be chosen for that tyme, that haue greatest
nuber of papers written for the shall be deputyes for that
Courte; whose names shall be endorsed on the backe side of the
warrant and returned into the Courte, wth the Constable or
Constables hand vnto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced and
decreed, that Wyndsor, Hartford and Wethersfield shall haue
power, ech Towne, to send fower of their freemen as deputyes
to euery Generall Courte; and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be
hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many
deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable
prportion to the nuber of Freemen that are in the said Townes
being to be attended therein; wch deputyes shall have the
power of the whole Towne to giue their voats and alowance to
all such lawes and orders as may be for the publike good, and
unto wch the said Townes are to be bownd. 9. It is ordered and
decreed, that the deputyes thus chosen shall haue power and
liberty to appoynt a tyme and a place of meeting togather
before any Generall Courte to aduise and consult of all such
things as may concerne the good of the publike, as also to
examine their owne Elections, whether according to the order,
and if they or the gretest prte of them find any election to
be illegall they may seclud such for prsent fro their meeting,
and returne the same and their resons to the Courte; and if yt
proue true, the Courte may fyne the prty or prtyes so
intruding and the Towne, if they see cause, and giue out a
warrant to goe to a newe election in a legall way, either in
prte or in whole. Also the said deputyes shall haue power to
fyne any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for
not coming in due tyme or place according to appoyntment; and
they may returne the said fynes into the Courte if yt be
refused to be paid, and the tresurer to take notice of yt, and
to estreete or levy the same as he doth other fynes.
{499}
10. It is Ordered, sentenceJ and decreed, that euery Generall
Courte, except such as through neglecte of the Gou'nor and the
greatest prte of Magestrats the Freemen themselves doe call,
shall consist of the Gouernor, or some one chosen to moderate
the Court, and 4 other Magestruts at lest, wth the mayor prte
of the deputyes of the seuerall Townes legally chosen; and in
case the Freemen or mayor prte of the, through neglect or
refusall of the Gouernor and mayor prte of the magestrats,
shall call a Courte, yt shall consist of the mayor prte of
Freemen that are prsent or their deputyes, wty a Moderator
chosen by the: In wch said Generall Courts shall consist the
supreme power of the Comonwelth, and they only shall haue
power to make laws or repeale the, to graunt leuyes, to admitt
of Freemen, dispose of lands vndisposed of, to seuerall Townes
or prsons, and also shall haue power to call ether Courte or
Magestrate or any other prson whatsoeuer into question for any
misdemeanour, and may for just causes displace or deale
otherwise according to the nature of the offence; and also may
deale in any other matter that concerns the good of this comon
welth, excepte election of Magestrats, wch shall be done by
the whole boddy of Freemen. In wch Courte the Gouernour or
Moderator shall haue power to order the Courte to giue liberty
of spech, and silence vncensonable and disorderly speakeings,
to put all things to voate, and in case the voate be equall to
haue the casting voice. But non of these Courts shall be
adiorned or dissolued wthout the consent of the maior prte of
the Court. 11. It is ordered, sentenced and decreed, that when
any Gemerall Courte vppon the occations of the Comonwelth haue
agreed vppon any sume or somes of mony to be leuyed vppon the
seuerall Townes wthin this Jurisdiction, that a Comittee be
chosen to sett out and appoynt wt shall be the prportion of
euery Towne to pay of the said leuy, prvided the Comittees be
made vp of an equall nuber out of each Towne. 14th January,
1638, the 11 Orders abouesaid are voted."
Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, volume 1.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
The planting of New Haven Colony.
"In the height of the Hutchinson controversy [see
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638], John Davenport, an eminent
nonconformist minister from London, had arrived at Boston, and
with him a wealthy company, led by two merchants, Theophilus
Eaton and Edward Hopkins. Alarmed at the new opinions and
religious agitations of which Massachusetts was the seat,
notwithstanding very advantageous offers of settlement there,
they preferred to establish a separate community of their own,
to be forever free from the innovations of error and
licentiousness. Eaton and others sent to explore the coast
west of the Connecticut, selected a place for settlement near
the head of a spacious bay at Quinapiack [or Quinnipiack], or,
as the Dutch called it, Red Hill, where they built a hut and
spent the winter. They were joined in the spring [April, 1638]
by the rest of their company, and Davenport preached his first
sermon under the shade of a spreading oak. Presently they
entered into what they called a 'plantation covenant,' and a
communication being opened with the Indians, who were but few
in that neighborhood, the lands of Quinapiack were purchased,
except a small reservation on the east side of the bay, the
Indians receiving a few presents and a promise of protection.
A tract north of the bay, ten miles in one direction and
thirteen in the other, was purchased for ten coats; and the
colonists proceeded to lay out in squares the ground-plan of a
spacious city, to which they presently gave the name of New
Haven."
R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 1, chapter 9.
"They formed their political association by what they called a
'plantation covenant,' 'to distinguish it from a church
covenant, which could not at that time be made.' In this
compact they resolved, 'that, as in matters that concern the
gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public
offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates
and officers, making and repealing of laws; dividing
allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,'
they would 'be ordered by the rules which the Scriptures hold
forth.' It had no external sanction, and comprehended no
acknowledgment of the government of England. The company
consisted mostly of Londoners, who at home had been engaged in
trade. In proportion to their numbers, they were the richest
of all the plantations. Like the settlers on Narragansett Bay,
they had no other title to their lands than that which they
obtained by purchase from the Indians."
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, chapter 1.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.
The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.
"In June, 1639, the whole body of settlers [at Quinnipiack, or
New Haven] came together to frame a constitution. A tradition,
seemingly well founded, says that the meeting was held in a large
barn. According to the same account, the purpose for which
they had met and the principles on which they ought to proceed
were set forth by Davenport in a sermon. 'Wisdom hath builded
her house, she hath hewn out seven pillars,' was the text.
There is an obvious connection between this and the subsequent
choice of seven of the chief men to lay the foundation of the
constitution. ... Davenport set forth the general system on
which the constitution ought to be framed. The two main
principles which he laid down were, that Scripture is a
perfect and sufficient rule for the conduct of civil affairs,
and that church-membership must be a condition of citizenship.
In this the colonists were but imitating the example of
Massachusetts. ... After the sermon, five resolutions
[followed by a sixth, constituting together what was called
the 'fundamental agreement' of New Haven Colony], formally
introducing Davenport's proposals, were carried. If a church
already existed, it was not considered fit to form a basis for
the state. Accordingly a fresh one was framed by a curiously
complicated process. As a first step, twelve men were elected.
These twelve were instructed, after a due interval for
consideration, to choose seven out of their own number, who
should serve as a nucleus for the church. At the same time an
oath was taken by the settlers, which may be looked on as a
sort of preliminary and provisional test of citizenship,
pledging them to accept the principles laid down by Davenport.
Sixty-three of the inhabitants took the oath, and their
example was soon followed by fifty more. By October, four
months after the original meeting, the seven formally
established the new commonwealth. They granted the rights of a
freeman to all who joined them, and who were recognized
members either of the church at New Haven or of any other
approved church. The freemen thus chosen entered into an
agreement to the same effect as the oath already taken. They
then elected a Governor and four Magistrates, or, as they were
for the present called, a Magistrate and four Deputies. ...
The functions of the Governor and Magistrates were not
defined. Indeed, but one formal resolution was passed as to
the constitution of the colony, namely, 'that the Word of God
shall be the only rule attended unto in ordering the affairs
of government.'"
J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 6.
{500}
"Of all the New England colonies, New Haven was most purely a
government by compact, by social contract. ... The free
planters ... signed each their names to their voluntary
compact, and ordered that 'all planters hereafter received in
this plantation should submit to the said foundamentall
agreement, and testifie the same by subscribing their names.'
It is believed that this is the sole instance of the formation
of an independent civil government by a general compact
wherein all the parties to the agreement were legally required
to be actual signers thereof. When this event occurred, John
Locke was in his seventh year, and Rousseau was a century
away."
C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, page 23.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1640-1655.
The attempted New Haven colonization on the Delaware.
Fresh quarrels with the Dutch.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1643.
The confederation of the colonies.
The progress and state of New Haven and the River Colony.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.
Settlement of boundaries with the Dutch of New Netherland.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1663.
The beginning of boundary conflicts with Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
The protection of the regicides at New Haven.
"Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special
grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the
tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in
1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high
position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden.
... The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in
Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some
who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord
Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's
daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal
order for their arrest was sent to Boston. ... The king's
detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of
New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the
aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their
hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a
mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly
cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a
wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by
overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or
three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel
Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to
take possession of the American grant lately made by the king
to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded
hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the
Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned,
and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people
of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the
fugitives. ... The colony, moreover, did not officially
recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until
that event had been commonly known in New England for more
than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was
specially roused against New Haven."
J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England,
pages 192-194.
ALSO IN:
G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 11.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.
The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.
"The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a
cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy
and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been
especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels,
Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would
have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut
was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor,
John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of
Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the
new King. ... In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly
declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to
England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a
charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was
successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The
acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to
the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it
was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation.
Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and
allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It
incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate
and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of
the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.'
... The people were to have all the liberties and immunities
of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within
the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that
part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west
of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to
the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' ...
It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the
charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in
1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and
the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival
colony of New Haven. ... New Haven did not submit without a
struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the
supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three
years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the
General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New
Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' ...
{501}
In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the
New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with
magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local
officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion
for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford
having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General
Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held
its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of
our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet
been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New
Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to
the General Court at Hartford. ... In 1701 the General Court
... voted that its annual October session should thereafter be
held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was
incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued
until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."
A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State,
pages 25-28.
ALSO IN:
B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 12.
Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-78.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664.
Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1666.
The New Haven migration to Newark, N. J.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.
Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the
Duke of York.
In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the
Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a
new patent for the province, in which he not only included
Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River,
which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal
commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted,
but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall
of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose
only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one
corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the
mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was
made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war
had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the
authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook
that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the
Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people
against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather
preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros,
if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all
precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the
actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any
armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors
standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor
of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you
are not to suffer them to stand. ... But you are in his
majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but
if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your
best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the
whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came
and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to
reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the
Connecticut representatives."
A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12.
Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of
the State of New York, page 21.
ALSO IN:
C. W. Bowen, The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
pages 70-72.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.
The hostile king and the hidden charter.
Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.
"During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king
had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he
did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the
charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the
friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have
seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even
after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles
demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted
brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to
contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been
affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law
of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th
day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the
honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo
warranto was issued against the governor and company of
Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within
eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor
they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was
quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by
Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The
day of appearance named in them was passed long before the
writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the
agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be
brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous
intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the
28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon
the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date
the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear
before the king' within eight days of the purification of the
Blessed Virgin.' ... Of course, the day named was not known to
the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal
contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had
been brought under a provisional general government, by
commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president.
President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and
council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's
hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in
behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply
with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before
the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted,
superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of
New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of
December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission
and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he
established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and
company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment,
and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to
receive their charter if they would give it up to him."
G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut,
volume 1, chapter 14.
{502}
On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General
Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was
addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly
pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been
granted to them. For the first time they admitted the
possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that
case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was
construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the
days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and
purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person
to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of
October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers.
The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward
mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir
Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the
colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor
Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this
action. ... The debate was continued until the shadows of the
early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted,
the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box
supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and
placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished.
Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the
building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had
disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be
found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under
cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden
by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree
standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion.
The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the
duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several
years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the
coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been
carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it
probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from
the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a
safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always
be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have
been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the
Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for
centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn.
When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the
time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly
states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's
seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been
commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of
Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it
was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and
Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary
handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote
these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund
Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's
Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his
Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of
October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this
colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the
Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's
government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel
beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair
promises."
E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 16.
ALSO IN:
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686,
and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697.
King William's War.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.
The reinstatement of the charter government.
"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first
news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody.
May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their
functions, and called the assembly together for the following
month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not
a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the
charter; but the charter government was put into full effect
again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was
sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further
interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No
decided action was taken by the home government for some
years, except that its appointment of the New York governor,
Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a
decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded.
Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent
to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an
emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by
those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid,
Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the
same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no
ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the
charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not
been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had
any judgment of record been entered against it; that its
operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering
force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the
peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an
illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the
passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed
Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to
forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical
moment, secured all that could be secured under the
circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all
possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing
the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in
this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion
in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last,
and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a
real democracy. ... Democracy had done more for Connecticut
than class influence had done for Massachusetts."
A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12.
{503}
"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut
included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the
portion of the British empire distinguished above all others
by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy
under the shelter of a monarchy. ... The crown, by reserving
to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of
interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both
of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of
trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of
the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701,
was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all
American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate
that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and
contended that its liberties were held by contract in return
for services that had been performed; that the taking away of
so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal
promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the
chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a
second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was
advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in
England. The impending war with the French postponed the
purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."
G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's
last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711.
Queen Anne's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799.
Western territorial claims.
Settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
Conflicts with the Penn colonists.
See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756;
1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.
The revolt against the Stamp Act.
"The English government understood very well that the colonies
were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no
thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would
arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public
affairs in America. ... Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll,
with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power
to oppose the scheme of taxation ... counselled submission.
They mistook the feeling of the people. ... The clergy were
still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in
denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized
under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of
which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if
necessary. ... Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to
oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the
position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to
take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting
it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with
this action. ... He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who
inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them
off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was
a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New
London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a
heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at
Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly
earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the
intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt
that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A
formal resignation was given him to sign. ... After he had
signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged
to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and
Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had
no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he
repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now
hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted
to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the
court-house.
E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 29.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766.
The repeal of the Stamp Act.
The Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784.
The ending of slavery.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill.
The Massachusetts Act.
The Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
New England in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.
Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."
"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from
their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general
assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The
important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That
the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter
from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the
people of this State, shall be and remain the civil
Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the
people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.
And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a
free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the
State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was
doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter
derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from
the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last
sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a
free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate
something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless
presented to the Americans of 1776-89."
A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 16.
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
{504}
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783.
The war and the victory.
Independence achieved.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778.
The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779.
Tryon's marauding expeditions.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786.
Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States.
The Western Reserve in Ohio.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788.
Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
----------CONNECTICUT: End----------
CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
CONNUBIUM.
See MUNICIPIUM.
CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.
CONOYS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CONRAD I.,
King of the East Franks (Germany),
(the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.
Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039;
King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039;
Emperor, 1027-1039.
Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or
Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.
Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.
CONSCRIPT FATHERS.
The Roman senators were so called,--"Patres Conscripti." The
origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the
explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that
when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new
creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were
called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones
were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole
senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed
finally into "Patres-Conscripti."
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4.
CONSCRIPTION, The first French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).
CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.
The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND:
A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party
designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson
Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept
slowly into general favour, although some few there were who
always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the
late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at
all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr.
Croker's mark upon it."
L. J. Jennings, The Croker Papers, volume 2, page 198.
CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
CONSISTORY, The Papal.
See CURIA, PAPAL.
CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.
"The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in
theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In
the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the
common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for
sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties
the breach of the moral law. ... The administration of such a
discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. ... Thus
arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance
over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the
cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of
all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and
profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by
which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of
Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts,
perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to
aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and
weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints
become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to
wield them. ... The Consistory Courts had continued into the
sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although
they had been for generations merely perennially flowing
fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral
conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to
them. ... But between the original design and the degenerate
counterfeit there was this vital difference,--that the
censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in
various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence
against morality was rated at its specific money value in the
Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as
ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel
unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The
misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were
'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding
thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,'
'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,'
'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment
of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal
definition."
J. A. Froude. History of England, chapter 3.
CONSPIRACY BILL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
CONSTABLE, The.
"The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine
court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory
of Tours. The duties of the constables of France ... and those
of the constables of Naples ... are not exactly parallel with
[those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable
kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the
quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the
sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his
subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In
England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the
constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties
which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The
marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the
constable one of the castle or army. ... The constable ...
exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and
army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 122, and note.
{505}
CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.
"No other dignity in the world has been held by such a
succession of great soldiers as the office of Constable of
France. The Constable was originally a mere officer of the
stables, but his power had increased by the suppression of the
office of Grand Seneschal, and by the time of Philip Augustus
he exercised control over all the military forces of the
crown. He was the general in chief of the army and the highest
military authority in the kingdom. The constables had for four
centuries been leaders in the wars of France, and they had
experienced strange and varied fortunes. The office had been
bestowed on the son of Simon de Montfort, and he for this
honor had granted to the king of France his rights over those
vast domains which had been given his father for his pious
conquests. [See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.] It had been
bestowed on Raoul de Nesle, who fell at Courtrai, where the
French nobility suffered its first defeat from Flemish boors;
on Bertrand de Guesclin, the last of the great warriors, whose
deeds were sung with those of the paladins of Charlemagne; on
Clisson, the victor of Roosebeck [or Rosebecque]; on Armagnac,
whose name has a bloody preeminence among the leaders of the
fierce soldiery who ravaged France during the English wars; on
Buchan, whose Scotch valor and fidelity gained him this great
trust among a foreign people; on Richemont, the companion of
Joan Darc; on Saint Pol, the ally of Charles the Bold, the
betrayer and the victim of Louis XI.; on the Duke of Bourbon,
who won the battle of Pavia against his sovereign, and led his
soldiers to that sack of Rome which made the ravages of
Genseric and Alaric seem mild; on Anne of Montmorenci, a
prominent actor in every great event in France from the battle
of Pavia against Charles V. to that of St. Denis against
Coligni; on his son, the companion of Henry IV. in his youth,
and his trusted adviser in his age. ... The sword borne by
such men had been bestowed [1621] on Luines, the hero of an
assassination, who could not drill a company of infantry; it
was now [1622] given to the hero of many battles [the Duke of
Lesdeguières], and the great office was to expire in the hands
of a great soldier."
J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 94.
CONSTANCE, The Council of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
CONSTANCE, Peace of (1183).
See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
CONSTANS I.,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-350.
Constans II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641-668.
CONSTANTINA, The taking of (1837).
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.
CONSTANTINE, Pope, A. D. 708-715.
Constantine I. (called The Great), Roman Emperor, A. D. 306-337.
The Conversion.
See ROME: A. D. 323.
The Forged Donation of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
Constantine II., Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-340.
Constantine III., Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 641.
Constantine IV. (called Pogonatus),
Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 668-685.
Constantine V. (called Copronymus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 741-775.
Constantine VI., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 780-797.
Constantine VII. (called Porphyrogenitus),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 911-950.
Constantine VIII. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 944.
Constantine IX., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1028.
Constantine X., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1042-1054.
Constantine XI., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1059-1067.
Constantine XII., nominal Greek Emperor in the East,
about A. D. 1071..
Constantine XIII. (Polæologus), Greek Emperor
of Constantinople, A. D. 1448-1453.
Constantine the Usurper.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.
Transformation of Byzantium.
"Constantine had for some time contemplated the erection of a
new capital. The experience of nearly half a century had
confirmed the sagacity of Diocletian's selection of a site on
the confines of Europe and Asia [Nicomedia] as the whereabouts
in which the political centre of gravity of the Empire rested.
At one time Constantine thought of adopting the site of
ancient Troy, and is said to have actually commenced building
a new city there. ... More prosaic reasons ultimately
prevailed. The practical genius of Constantine recognized in
the town of Byzantium, on the European side of the border line
between the two continents, the site best adapted for his new
capital. All subsequent ages have applauded his discernment,
for experience has endorsed the wisdom of the choice. By land,
with its Asian suburb of Chrysopolis [modern Scutari], it
practically spanned the narrow strait and joined Europe and
Asia: by sea, it was open on one side to Spain, Italy, Greece,
Africa, Egypt, Syria; on the other to the Euxine, and so by
the Danube it had easy access to the whole of that important
frontier between the Empire and the barbarians; and round all
the northern coasts of the sea it took the barbarians in
flank. ... The city was solemnly dedicated with religious
ceremonies on the 11th of May, 330, and the occasion was
celebrated, after the Roman fashion, by a great festival,
largesses and games in the hippodrome, which lasted forty
days. The Emperor gave to the city institutions modelled after
those of the ancient Rome."
E. L. Cutts, Constantine the Great, chapter 29.
"The new walls of Constantine stretched from the port to the
Propontis ... at the distance of fifteen stadia from the
ancient fortification, and, with the city of Byzantium, they
enclosed five of the seven hills which, to the eyes of those
who approach Constantinople, appear to rise above each other
in beautiful order. About a century after the death of the
founder, the new buildings ... already covered the narrow
ridge of the sixth and the broad summit of the seventh hill.
... The buildings of the new city were executed by such
artificers as the reign of Constantine could afford; but they
were decorated by the hands of the most celebrated masters of
the age of Pericles and Alexander. ... By his commands the
cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most
valuable ornaments."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{506}
"The new city was an exact copy of old Rome. ... It was
inhabited by senators from Rome. Wealthy individuals from the
provinces were likewise compelled to keep up houses at
Constantinople, pensions were conferred upon them, and a right
to a certain amount of provisions from the public stores was
annexed to these dwellings. Eighty thousand loaves of bread
were distributed daily to the inhabitants of Constantinople.
... The tribute of grain from Egypt was appropriated to supply
Constantinople, and that of Africa was left for the
consumption of Rome."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. B. Bury, History of the later Roman Empire,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 363-518.
The Eastern Court from Valens to Anastatius.
Tumults at the capital.
See ROME: A. D. 363-379 to 400-518.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 378.
Threatened by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 400.
Popular rising against the Gothic soldiery.
Their expulsion from the city.
See ROME: A. D. 400-518.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.
Tumults concerning the Trisagion.
During the reign of Anastatius, at Constantinople, the fierce
controversy which had raged for many years throughout the
empire, between the Monophysites (who maintained that the
divine and the human natures in Christ were one), and the
'adherents of the Council of Chalcedon (which declared that
Christ possessed two natures in one person), was embittered at
the imperial capital by opposition between the emperor, who
favored the Monophysites, and the patriarch who was strict in
Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 511, and again in 512, it gave rise
to two alarming riots at Constantinople. On the first
occasion, a Monophysite or Eutychian party "burst into the
Chapel of the Archangel in the Imperial Palace and dared to
chant the Te Deum with the addition of the forbidden words,
the war-cry of many an Eutychian mob, 'Who wast crucified for
us.' The Trisagion, as it was called, the thrice-repeated cry
to the Holy One, which Isaiah in his vision heard uttered by
the seraphim, became, by the addition of these words, as
emphatic a statement as the Monophysite party could desire of
their favourite tenet that God, not man, breathed out his soul
unto death outside the gates of Jerusalem. ... On the next
Sunday the Monophysites sang the verse which was their war-cry
in the great Basilica itself." The riot which ensued was
quieted with difficulty by the patriarch, to whom the emperor
humbled himself. But in the next year, on a fast-day (Nov. 6)
the Monophysites gave a similar challenge, singing the
Trisagion with the prohibited words added, and "again psalmody
gave place to blows; men wounded and dying lay upon the floor
of the church. ... The orthodox mob streamed from all parts
into the great forum. There they swarmed and swayed to and fro
all that day and all that night, shouting forth, not the
greatness of the Ephesian Diana, but 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'
without the words' 'Who wast crucified.' They hewed down the
monks,--a minority of their class,--who were on the side of
the imperial creed, and burned their monasteries with fire."
After two days of riot, the aged emperor humbled himself to
the mob, in the great Circus, offered to abdicate the throne
and made peace by promises to respect the decrees of
Chalcedon.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 10.
See, also, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 532.
The Sedition of Nika.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 542.
The Plague.
See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 553.
General Council.
See THREE CHAPTERS, THE DISPUTE OF THE.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 626.
Attacked by the Avars and Persians.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.
First siege by the Saracens.
"Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca his
disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople.
They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the
prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of
the Cæsars, their sins were forgiven. ... No sooner had the
Caliph Moawiyah [the first of the Ommiade caliphs, seated at
Damascus,] suppressed his rivals and established his throne,
than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the
success of this holy expedition; his preparations by sea and
land were adequate to the importance of the object; his
standard was entrusted to Sophian, a veteran warrior. ... The
Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons
of fear, from the courage and vigilance of the reigning
Emperor, who disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated
only the inglorious years of his grandfather Heraclius.
Without delay or opposition, the naval forces of the Saracens
passed through the unguarded channel of the Hellespont, which
even now, under the feeble and disorderly government of the
Turks, is maintained as the natural bulwark of the capital.
The Arabian fleet cast anchor and the troops were disembarked
near the palace of Hebdomon, seven miles from the city. During
many days, from the dawn of light to the evening, the line of
assault was extended from the golden gate to the Eastern
promontory. ... But the besiegers had formed an insufficient
estimate of the strength and resources of Constantinople. The
solid and lofty walls were guarded by numbers and discipline;
the spirit of the Romans was rekindled by the last danger of
their religion and empire; the fugitives from the conquered
provinces more successfully renewed the defence of Damascus
and Alexandria; and the Saracens were dismayed by the strange
and prodigious effects of artificial fire. This firm and
effectual resistance diverted their arms to the more easy
attempts of plundering the European and Asiatic coasts of the
Propontis; and, after keeping the sea from the month of April
to that of September, on the approach of winter they retreated
four score miles from the capital, to the isle of Cyzicus, in
which they had established their magazine of spoil and
provisions. So patient was their perseverance, or so languid
were their operations, that they repeated in the six following
summers the same attack and retreat, with a gradual abatement
of hope and vigour, till the mischances of shipwreck and
disease, of the sword and of fire, compelled them to
relinquish the fruitless enterprise. They might bewail the
loss, or commemorate the martyrdom, of 30,000 Moslems who fell
in the siege of Constantinople. ... The event of the siege
revived, both in the East and West, the reputation of the
Roman arms, and cast a momentary shade over the glories of the
Saracens. ... A peace, or truce of thirty years was ratified
between the two Empires; and the stipulation of an annual
tribute, fifty horses of a noble breed, fifty slaves, and
3,000 pieces of gold, degraded the majesty of the commander of
the faithful."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{507}
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 680.
General Council.
See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.
The second siege by the Saracens.
"When Leo [the Isaurian] was raised to the [Byzantine] throne
[A. D. 717], the empire was threatened with immediate ruin.
Six emperors had been dethroned within the space of twenty-one
years. ... The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to
the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of
Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus. ... The Caliph
Suleiman, who had seen one private adventurer succeed the
other in quick succession on the imperial throne, deemed the
moment favourable for the final conquest of the Christians;
and, reinforcing his brother's army [in Asia Minor], he
ordered him to lay siege to Constantinople. The Saracen empire
had now reached its greatest extent. From the banks of the
Sihun and the Indus to the shores of the Atlantic in
Mauretania and Spain, the order of Suleiman was implicitly
obeyed. ... The army Moslemah led against Constantinople was
the best-appointed that had ever attacked the Christians: it
consisted of 80,000 warriors. The Caliph announced his
intention of taking the field in person with additional
forces, should the capital of the Christians offer a
protracted resistance to the arms of Islam. The whole
expedition is said to have employed 180,000 men. ... Moslemah,
after capturing Pergamus, marched to Abydos, where he was
joined by the Saracen fleet. He then transported his army
across the Hellespont, and marching along the shore of the
Propontis, invested Leo in his capital both by land and sea.
The strong walls of Constantinople, the engines of defence
with which Roman and Greek art had covered the ramparts, and
the skill of the Byzantine engineers, rendered every attempt
to carry the place by assault hopeless, so that the Saracens
were compelled to trust to the effect of a strict blockade for
gaining possession of the city. ... The besiegers encamped
before Constantinople on the 15th August 717. The Caliph
Suleiman died before he was able to send any reinforcements to
his brother. The winter proved unusually severe." Great
numbers of the warriors from the south were destroyed by the
inclemency of a climate to which they had not become inured;
many more died of famine in the Moslem camp, while the
besieged city was plentifully supplied. The whole undertaking
was disastrous from its beginning to its close, and, exactly
one year from the pitching of his camp under the Byzantine
walls, "on the 15th of August 718, Moslemah raised the siege,
after ruining one of the finest armies the Saracens ever
assembled. ... Few military details concerning Leo's defence
of Constantinople have been preserved, but there can be no
doubt that it was one of the most brilliant exploits of a
warlike age. ... The vanity of Gallic writers has magnified
the success of Charles Martel over a plundering expedition of
the Spanish Arabs into a marvellous victory, and attributed
the deliverance of Europe from the Saracen yoke to the valour
of the Franks. A veil has been thrown over the talents and
courage of Leo, a soldier of fortune, just seated on the
imperial throne, who defeated the long-planned schemes of
conquest of the Caliphs Welid and Suleiman. It is unfortunate
that we have no Isaurian literature. ... The war was languidly
carried on for some years and the Saracens were gradually
expelled from most of their conquests beyond Mount Tauris."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine
Empire from 716 to 1057, chapter 1.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 747.
The Great Plague.
See PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 754.
The Iconoclastic Council.
See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.
First attack by the Russians.
"In the year 865, a nation hitherto unknown made its first
appearance in the history of the world, where it was destined
to act no unimportant part. Its entrance into the political
system of the European nations was marked by an attempt to
take Constantinople, a project which it has often revived. ...
In the year 862, Rurik, a Scandinavian or Varangian chief,
arrived at Novgorod, and laid the first foundation of the
state which has grown into the Russian empire. The Russian
people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in
power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. ...
From what particular circumstance the Russians were led to
make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The
Emperor Michael [III.] had taken the command of an army to act
against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted
as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the
Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of 200
Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a
favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and
anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis,
about 18 miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition
had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from
its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about
Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging
the monasteries and slaying the monks as well as the other
inhabitants. The Emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on
his capital hastened to its defence. ... It required no great
exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a
force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders;
but the horrid cruelty of the barbarians, and the wild daring
of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the
people of Constantinople."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 3, section 3.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.
Repeated attacks by the Russians.
Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial
intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians,
Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part
of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful
Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of
2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and
laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople.
"It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to
obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by
imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of
the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves
with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner.
{508}
At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a
large sum of money. ... These hostilities were terminated by a
commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty
until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by
Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the
Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result
was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the
Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt
on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria;
which would have brought them into the same dangerous
neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day
has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John
Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian
invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was
reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the
Danube, once more. For more than half a century,
Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her
Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus
again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was
wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000
men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but
a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople
placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of
the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted;
and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with
ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin
nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol
of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the
Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them
from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most
Christian nation."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,
from 716 to 1057, book 2, chapter 3, section 2.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.
Sacked by the rebel army of Alexius Comnenus.
Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine
throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became
historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown
by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family
of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in
1057-1059,--he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the
product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years
had seen four emperors come and go--two to the grave and two
into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these--Nicephorus
III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of
an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of
the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he
gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor
consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery.
Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army
commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and
mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No
class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and
the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike
plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the
Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the
families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept
treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its
sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From
this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius
Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic
supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. ... The
power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a
century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated
populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family,
Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April,
1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek
Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 1.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204.
Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261.
The Latin Empire and its fall.
Recovery by the Greeks.
See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF,
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261.
Great privileges conceded to the Genoese.
Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The restored Greek Empire.
On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised
and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of
Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK
EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal
entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport
of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of
solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt
and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had
been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of
time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their
ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching
exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the
work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the
pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of
inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It
was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the
nobles in the palaces of their fathers. ... He repeopled
Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and
the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had
been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the
factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent
conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged
their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to
live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of
these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their
respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of
the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of
Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and
the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first
planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were
speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of
the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they
revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine
Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the
era of a new Empire."
{509}
The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital
of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael
Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest
islands of the Archipelago--Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His
brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and
Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and
Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. ... But
in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries
beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their
depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that
the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not
only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish
conquerors--the Ottomans--but those most aggressive of the
proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to
cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a
Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they
devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece,
until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long
before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In
the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at
Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the
rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their
battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference,
almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of
the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt
in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. ...
The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon
have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the
republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and
naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the
triumph of Venice. ... Yet the spirit of commerce survived
that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the
capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the
Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62-63.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and
Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2.
See, also,
TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
War with the Genoese.
Alliance with Venice and Aragon.
John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not
reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the
Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm
partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by
Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town,
and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the
civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency
with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the
revenue which the imperial government derived from the port.
... The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their
profits. ... The increased industry of the Greeks, and the
jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The
colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner,
without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With
a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they
attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the
capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of
the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who
administered the government in the absence of her husband,
behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold
attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital,
where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had
sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the
Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill
would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of
his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover,
to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land
side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly
conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his
plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and
his army retreated without making a serious attack.
Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received
an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. ... Their
victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep
possession of some land they had seized, and on which they
soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly
disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced
Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the
restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered
by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded,
by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor
of Constantinople in ten years. ... But this treaty was never
carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the
republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and
retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short
duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese
from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the
Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to
accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had
drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the
Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great
commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and
China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses.
The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had
been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the
Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had
extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of
the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and
capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the
two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351,
Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined
his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded
an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon.
Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age,
appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but
his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his
principal object was attained when he had convoyed the
merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos,
however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to
receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese
colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in
consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness
of the Venetians.
{510}
Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the
Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a
superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter,
stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where
Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and
carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were
compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these
captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, ...
The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city,
indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the
Black Sea. ... Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to
Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da
Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies
and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata.
The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it
received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of
which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The
honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese.
... Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople,
and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the
Venetian alliance ... concluded a peace with the republic of
Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek
empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to
all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the
previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata
and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
716-1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 4.
The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check
the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the
latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were
defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a
great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of
Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They
obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November,
when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at
Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was
preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained
not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed;
an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000,
and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken."
In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded
Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.
W. C. Hazlitt, History of the Venetian
Republic, chapter 18-19 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
F. A. Parker, The Fleets of the World, pages 88-94.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.
Conquest by the Turks.
Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at
the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of
Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were
fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which
he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply
to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he
would renounce the project of building a fort on the European
shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five
miles from the capital, would give him the command of the
Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to
flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message
again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned
with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that
passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan.
Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor]
made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he
could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid
from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself
with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to
his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in
manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when,
in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was
said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in
the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered
with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly
resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final
assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May,
1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of
the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead
body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman
capital. "The despairing people--senators, priests, monks,
nuns, husbands, wives and children--sought safety in the
church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here
the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a
drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in
the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed,
sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the
street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes,
and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a
frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons
could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves
among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and
hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the
glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of
the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were
plundered by other divisions of the army. ... About noon the
Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos,
passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among
the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend
the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was
now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true
believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought,
his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be
sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal
cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was
given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the
license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished
during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to
slavery."
C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern:
Fourth course, lecture 6.
ALSO IN:
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and
Greek Empires from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 68.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481.
The city repopulated and rebuilt.
Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.
{511}
"It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople,
in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The
installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the
Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually
returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their
property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a
sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the
Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the
greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly
exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and
population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed
compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to
Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build
their houses. ... Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians,
Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick
succession, and long before the end of his reign
Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active
population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it
had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of
his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. ...
Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of
architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were
constructed in every quarter of the city. ... The picturesque
beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its
artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a
Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire
disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The
traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine
capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine
architecture, must continue his travels eastward to
Trebizond."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 7.
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1807.
Threatened by a British fleet.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
----------CONSTANTINOPLE: End----------
CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
CONSTANTIUS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-306.
Constantius II., A. D. 337-361.
CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1814.
CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
----------CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine
Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868,"
taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic,"
prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary
Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's
Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since
1860:
Part I.
Article I.
The Argentine Nation adopts the federal-republican, and
representative form of Government, as established by the
present Constitution.
Article 2.
The Federal Government shall maintain the Apostolic Roman
Catholic Faith.
Article 3.
The authorities of the Federal Government shall reside in the
city which a special law of Congress may declare the capital
of the Republic, subsequently to the cession by one or more of
the Provincial Legislatures, of the territory about to be
federalized.
Article 4.
The Federal Government shall administer the expenses of the
Nation out of the revenue in the National Treasury, derived
from import and export duties; from the sale and lease of the
public lands; from postage; and from such other taxes as the
General Congress may equitably and proportionably lay upon the
people; as also, from such loans and credits as may be decreed
by it in times of national necessity, or for enterprises of
national utility.
Article 5.
Each Province shall make a Constitution for itself, according
to the republican representative system, and the principles,
declarations and guarantees of this Constitution; and which
shall provide for (secure) Municipal Government, primary
education and the administration of justice. Under these
conditions the Federal Government shall guarantee to each
Province the exercise and enjoyment of its institutions.
Article 6.
The Federal Government shall intervene in the Provinces to
guarantee the republican form of Government, or to repel
foreign invasion, and also, on application of their
constituted authorities, should they have been deposed by
sedition or by invasion from another Province, for the purpose
of sustaining or re-establishing them.
Article 7.
Full faith shall be given in each Province to the pubic acts,
and judicial proceedings of every other Province; and Congress
may by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts
and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Article 8.
The citizens of each Province shall be entitled to all the
rights, privileges and immunities, inherent to the citizens of
all the several Provinces. The reciprocal extradition of
criminals between all the Provinces, is obligatory.
Article 9.
Throughout the territory of the Nation, no other than the
National Custom-Houses shall be allowed, and they shall be
regulated by the tariffs sanctioned by Congress.
Article 10.
The circulation of all goods produced or manufactured in the
Republic, is free within its borders, as also, that of all
species of merchandise which may be dispatched by the
Custom-Houses of entry.
Article 11.
Such articles of native or foreign production, as well as
cattle of every kind, which pass from one Province to another,
shall be free from all transit-duties, and also the vehicles,
vessels or animals, which transport them; and no tax, let it
be what it may, can be henceforward imposed upon them on
account of such transit.
Article 12.
Vessels bound from one Province to another, shall not be
compelled to enter, anchor, or pay transit-duties; nor in any
case can preferences be granted to one port over another, by
any commercial laws or regulations.
Article 13.
New Provinces may be admitted into the Nation; but no Province
shall be erected within the territory of any other Province,
or Provinces, nor any Province be formed by the junction of
various Provinces, without the consent of the legislatures of
the Provinces concerned, as well as of Congress.
{512}
Article 14.
All the inhabitants of the Nation shall enjoy the following
rights, according to the laws which regulate their exercise:
viz.. to labor and to practice all lawful industry; to trade
and navigate; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain
in, travel over and leave, Argentine territory; to publish
their ideas in the public-press without previous censure; to
enjoy and dispose of their property; to associate for useful
purposes; to profess freely their religion; to teach and to
learn.
Article 15.
In the Argentine Nation there are no slaves; the few which now
exist shall be free from the date of the adoption of this
Constitution, and a special law shall regulate the indemnity
acknowledged as due by this declaration. All contracts for the
purchase and sale of persons is a crime, for which those who
make them, as well as the notary or functionary which
authorizes them, shall be responsible, and the slaves who in
any manner whatever may be introduced, shall be free from the
sole fact that they tread the territory of the Republic.
Article 16.
The Argentine Nation does not admit the prerogatives of blood
nor of birth; in it, there are no personal privileges or
titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal in presence
of the law, and admissible to office without other condition
than that of fitness. Equality is the basis of taxation as
well as of public-posts.
Article 17.
Property is inviolable, and no inhabitant of the Nation can be
deprived of it, save by virtue of a sentence based on law. The
expropriation for public utility must be authorized by law and
previously indemnified. Congress alone shall impose the
contributions mentioned in Article 4. No personal service
shall be exacted save by virtue of law, or of a sentence
founded on law. Every author or inventor is the exclusive
proprietor of his work, invention or discovery, for the term
which the law accords to him. The confiscation of property is
henceforward and forever, stricken from the Argentine
penal-code. No armed body can make requisitions, nor exact
assistance of any kind.
Article 18.
No inhabitant of the Nation shall suffer punishment without a
previous judgment founded on a law passed previously to the
cause of judgment, nor be judged by special commissions, or
withdrawn from the Judges designated by law before the opening
of the cause. No one shall be obliged to testify against
himself; nor be arrested, save by virtue of a written order
from a competent authority. The defense at law both of the
person and his rights, is inviolable. The domicil, private
papers and epistolary correspondence, are inviolable; and a
law shall determine in what cases, and under what imputations,
a search-warrant can proceed against and occupy them. Capital
punishment for political causes, as well as every species of
torture and whippings, are abolished for ever. The prisons of
the Nation shall be healthy and clean, for the security, and
not for the punishment, of the criminals detained in them, and
every measure which under pretext of precaution may mortify
them more than such security requires, shall render
responsible the Judge who authorizes it.
Article 19.
Those private actions of men that in nowise offend public
order and morality, or injure a third party, belong alone to
God, and are beyond the authority of the magistrates. No
inhabitant of the Nation shall be compelled to do what the law
does not ordain, nor be deprived of anything which it does not
prohibit.
Article 20.
Within the territory of the Nation, foreigners shall enjoy all
the civil rights of citizens; they can exercise their
industries, commerce or professions, in accordance with the
laws; own, buy and sell real-estate; navigate the rivers and
coasts; freely profess their religion, and testate and marry.
They shall not be obliged to become citizens, nor to pay
forced contributions. Two years previous residence in the
Nation shall be required for naturalization, but the
authorities can shorten this term in favour of him who so
desires it, under the allegation and proof of services
rendered to the Republic.
Article 21.
Every Argentine citizen is obliged to arm himself in defense
of his country and of this Constitution, according to the laws
which Congress shall ordain for the purpose, and the decrees
of the National Executive. For the period of ten years from
the day on which they may have obtained their citizenship,
this service shall be voluntary on the part of the
naturalized.
Article 22.
The people shall not deliberate nor govern save by means of
their Representatives and Authorities, created by this
Constitution. Every armed force or meeting of persons which
shall arrogate to itself the rights of the people, and
petition in their name, is guilty of sedition.
Article 23.
In the event of internal commotion or foreign attack which
might place in jeopardy the practice of this Constitution, and
the free action of the Authorities created by it, the Province
or territory where such disturbance exists shall be declared
in a state of siege, all constitutional guarantees being
meantime suspended there. But during such suspension the
President of the Republic cannot condemn nor apply any
punishment per se. In respect to persons, his power shall be
limited to arresting and removing them from one place to
another in the Nation, should they not prefer to leave Argentine
territory.
Article 24.
Congress shall establish the reform of existing laws in all
branches, as also the trial by Jury.
Article 25.
The Federal Government shall foment European immigration; and
it cannot restrict, limit, nor lay any impost upon, the entry
upon Argentine territory, of such foreigners as come for the
purpose of cultivating the soil, improving manufactures, and
introducing and teaching the arts and sciences.
Article 26.
The navigation of the interior rivers of the Nation is free to
all flags, subject only to such regulations as the National
Authority may dictate.
Article 27.
The Federal Government is obliged to strengthen the bonds of
peace and commerce with foreign powers, by means of treaties
which shall be in conformity with the principles of public law
laid down in this Constitution.
Article 28.
The principles, rights and guarantees laid down in the
foregoing articles, cannot be altered by any laws intended to
regulate their practice.
Article 29.
Congress cannot grant to the Executive, nor the provincial
legislatures to the Governor of Provinces, any "extraordinary
faculties," nor the "sum of the public power," nor
"renunciations or supremacies" by which the lives, honor or
fortune of the Argentines shall be at the mercy of any
Government or person whatever. Acts of this nature shall be
irremediably null and void, and shall subject those who frame,
vote, or sign them, to the pains and penalties incurred by
those who are infamous traitors to their country.
{513}
Article 30.
This Constitution can be reformed in whole or in part. The
necessity for the reform shall be declared by Congress by at
least a two-thirds vote; but it can only be accomplished by a
convention called ad hoc.
Article 31.
This Constitution, and the laws of the Nation which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which
shall be made with Foreign Powers, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the authorities of every Province shall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any Province
to the contrary notwithstanding, excepting in the case of
Buenos-Aires, in the treaties ratified after the compact of
November 11th, 1859.
Article 32.
The Federal Congress shall not dictate laws restricting the
liberty of the press, nor establish any federal jurisdiction
over it.
Article 33.
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights and
guarantees, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other
rights and guarantees, not enumerated; but which spring from
the principle of popular sovereignty, and the republican form
of Government.
Article 34.
The Judges of the Federal courts shall not be Judges of
Provincial tribunals at the same time; nor shall the federal
service, civil as well as military, constitute a domicil in
the Province where it may be exercised, if it be not
habitually that of the employé; it being understood by this,
that all Provincial public-service is optional in the Province
where such employé may casually reside.
Article 35.
The names which have been successively adopted for the Nation,
since the year 1810 up to the present time; viz., the United
Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, Argentine Republic and
Argentine Confederation, shall henceforward serve without
distinction, officially to designate the Government and
territory of the Provinces, whilst the words Argentine Nation
shall be employed in the making and sanction of the laws.
Part II.--Section I.
Article 36.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress composed of two Chambers, one of National Deputies,
and the other of Senators of the Provinces and of the capital.
Chapter I.
Article 37.
The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of representatives
elected directly by the people of the Provinces, for which
purpose each one shall be considered as a single electoral
district, and by a simple plurality of votes in the ratio of
one for each 20,000 inhabitants, or for a fraction not less
than 10,000.
Article 38.
The deputies for the first Legislature shall be nominated in
the following proportion: for the Province of Buenos-Aires,
twelve; for that of Córdoba, six; for Catamarca, three;
Corrientes, four; Entre-Rios, two; Jujui, two; Mendoza, three;
Rioja, two; Salta, three; Santiago, four; San Juan, two;
Santa-Fé, two; San Luis, two; and for that of Tucumán, three.
Article 39.
For the second Legislature a general census shall be taken,
and the number of Deputies be regulated by it; thereafter,
this census shall be decennial.
Article 40.
No person shall be a Deputy who shall not have attained the
age of twenty-five years, have been four years in the exercise
of citizenship, and be a native of the Province which elects
him, or a resident of it for the two years immediately
preceding.
Article 41.
For the first election, the provincial Legislatures shall
regulate the method for a direct election of the National
Deputies. Congress shall pass a general law for the future.
Article 42.
The Deputies shall hold their place for four years, and are
re-eligible; but the House shall be renewed each biennial, by
halves; for which purpose those elected to the first
Legislature, as soon as the session opens, shall decide by lot
who shall leave at the end of the first period.
Article 43.
In case of vacancy, the Government of the Province or of the
capital, shall call an election for a new member.
Article 44.
The origination of the tax-laws and those for the recruiting
of troops, belongs exclusively to the House of Deputies.
Article 45.
It has the sole right of impeaching before the Senate, the
President, Vice-President, their Ministers, and the members of
the Supreme Court and other inferior Tribunals of the Nation,
in suits which may be undertaken against them for the improper
discharge of, or deficiency in, the exercise of their
functions; or for common crimes, after having heard them, and
declared by a vote of two thirds of the members present, that
there is cause for proceeding against them.
Chapter II.
Article 46.
The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each
Province, chosen by the Legislatures thereof by plurality of
vote, and two from the capital elected in the form prescribed
for the election of the President of the Nation. Each Senator
shall have one vote.
Article 47.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the
age of thirty years, been six years a citizen of the Nation,
enjoy an annual rent or income of two thousand hard-dollars,
and be a native of the Province which elects him, or a
resident of the same for the two years immediately preceding.
Article 48.
The Senators shall enjoy their trust for nine years, and are
indefinitely re-eligible; but the Senate shall be renewed by
thirds each three years, and shall decide by lot, as soon as
they be all re-united, who shall leave at the end of the first
and second triennial periods.
Article 49.
The Vice-President of the Nation shall be President of the
Senate; but shall have no vote, except in a case of a tie.
Article 50.
The Senate shall choose a President pro-tempore who shall
preside during the absence of the Vice-President, or when he
shall exercise the office of President of the Nation.
Article 51.
The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments
presented by the House of Deputies. When sitting for that
purpose they shall be under oath. When the President of the
Nation is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. No person
shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of
the members present.
Article 52.
Judgment in case of impeachment, shall not extend farther than
to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Nation. But
the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to
indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law,
before the ordinary tribunals.
{514}
Article 53.
It belongs, moreover, to the Senate, to authorize the
President to declare martial law in one or more points of the
Republic, in case of foreign aggression.
Article 54.
When any seat of a Senator be vacant by death, resignation or
other reason, the Government to which the vacancy belongs,
shall immediately proceed to the election of a new member.
Chapter III.
Article 55.
Both Chambers shall meet in ordinary session, every year from
the 1st May until the 30th September. They can be
extraordinarily convoked, or their session be prolonged by the
President of the Nation.
Article 56.
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of its own members. Neither of them shall enter
into session without an absolute Majority of its members; but
a smaller number may compel absent members to attend the
sessions, in such terms and under such penalties as each House
may establish.
Article 57.
Both Houses shall begin and close their sessions
simultaneously. Neither of them whilst in sessions can suspend
its meetings for more than three days, without the consent of
the other.
Article 58.
Each House may make its rules of proceeding, and with the
concurrence of two-thirds punish its members for disorderly
behavior in the exercise of their functions, or remove, and
even expel them from the House, for physical or moral
incapacity occurring after their incorporation; but a majority
of one above one half of the members present, shall suffice to
decide questions of voluntary resignation.
Article 59.
In the act of their incorporation the Senators and Deputies
shall take an oath to properly fulfil their charge, and to act
in all things in conformity to the prescriptions of this
Constitution.
Article 60.
No member of Congress can be indicted, judicially
interrogated, or molested for any opinion or discourse which
he may have uttered in fulfilment of his Legislative duties.
Article 61.
No Senator or Deputy, during the term for which he may have
been elected, shall be arrested, except when taken 'in
flagrante' commission of some crime which merits capital
punishment or other degrading sentence; an account thereof
shall be rendered to the Chamber he belongs to, with a verbal
process of the facts.
Article 62.
When a complaint in writing be made before the ordinary courts
against any Senator or Deputy, each Chamber can by a
two-thirds vote, suspend the accused in his functions and
place him at the disposition of the competent judge for trial.
Article 63.
Each of the Chambers can cause the Ministers of the Executive
to come to their Hall, to give such explanations or
information as may be considered convenient.
Article 64.
No member of Congress can receive any post or commission from
the Executive, without the previous consent of his respective
Chamber, excepting such as are in the line of promotion.
Article 65.
The regular ecclesiastics cannot be members of Congress, nor
call the Governors of Provinces represent the Province which
they govern.
Article 66.
The Senators and Deputies shall be remunerated for their
services, by a compensation to be ascertained by law.
Chapter IV.
Article 67.
The Congress shall have power:--
1. To legislate upon the Custom-Houses and establish import
duties; which, as well as all appraisements for their
collection, shall be uniform throughout the Nation, it being
clearly understood that these, as well as all other national
contributions, can be paid in any money at the just value
which may be current in the respective Provinces. Also, to
establish export duties.
2. To lay direct taxes for determinate periods, whenever the
common defense and general welfare require it, which shall be
uniform throughout the territory of the Nation.
3. To borrow money on the credit of the Nation.
4. To determine the use and sale of the National lands.
5. To establish and regulate a National Bank in the capital,
with branches in the Provinces, and with power to emit bills.
6. To regulate the payment of the home and foreign debts of
the Nation.
7. To annually determine the estimates of the National
Administration, and approve or reject the accounts of
expenses.
8. To grant subsidies from the National Treasury to those
Provinces, whose revenues, according to their budgets, do not
suffice to cover the ordinary expenses.
9. To regulate the free navigation of the interior rivers,
open such ports as may be considered necessary, create and
suppress Custom-Houses, but without suppressing those which
existed in each Province at the time of its incorporation.
10. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign
coin, and adopt a uniform system of weights and measures for
the whole Nation.
11. To decree civil, commercial, penal and mining Codes, but
such Codes shall have no power to change local jurisdiction;
their application shall belong to the Federal or Provincial
courts, in accordance with such things or persons as may come
under their respective jurisdiction; especially, general laws
embracing the whole Nation, shall be passed upon
naturalization and citizenship, subject to the principle of
native citizenship; also upon bankruptcy, the counterfeiting
of current-money and public State documents; and such laws as
may be required for the establishment of trial by Jury.
12. To regulate commerce by land and sea with foreign nations,
and between the Provinces.
13. To establish and regulate the general post-offices and
post-roads of the Nation.
14. To finally settle the National boundaries, fix those of
the Provinces, create new Provinces, and determine by a
special legislation, the organization and governments, which
such National territories as are beyond the limits assigned to
the Province, should have.
15. To provide for the security of the frontiers; preserve
peaceful relations with the Indians, and promote their
conversion to Catholicism.
16. To provide all things conducive to the prosperity of the
country, to the advancement and happiness of the Provinces,
and to the increase of enlightenment, decreeing plans for
general and university instruction, promoting industry,
immigration, the construction of railways, and navigable
canals, the peopling of the National lands, the introduction
and establishment of new industries, the importation of
foreign capital and the exploration of the interior rivers, by
protection laws to these ends, and by temporary concessions
and stimulating recompenses.
{515}
17. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,
create and suppress public offices, fix their attributes,
grant pensions, decree honors and general amnesties.
18. To accept or reject the resignation of the President or
Vice-President of the Republic, and declare new elections; to
make the scrutiny and rectification of the same.
19. To ratify or reject the treaties made with other Nations
and the Concordats with the Apostolic See, and regulate the
patronage of advowsons throughout the Nation.
20. To admit religious orders within the Nation, other than
those already existing.
21. To authorize the Executive to declare war and make peace.
22. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules
concerning prizes.
23. To fix the land and sea forces in time of peace and war:
and to make rules and regulations for the government of said
forces.
24. To provide for calling forth the militia of all, or a part
of, the Provinces, to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress
insurrections or repel invasions. To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining said militia, and for governing such
part of them as may be employed in the service of the Nation,
reserving to the Provinces respectively, the appointment of
the corresponding chiefs and officers, and the authority of
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress.
25. To permit the introduction of foreign troops within the
territory of the Nation, and the going beyond it of the
National forces.
26. To declare martial law in any or various points of the
Nation in case of domestic commotion, and ratify or suspend
the declaration of martial law made by the executive during
the recess.
27. To exercise exclusive legislation over the territory of
the National capital, and over such other places acquired by
purchase or cession in any of the Provinces, for the purpose
of establishing forts, arsenals, warehouses, or other needful
national buildings.
28. To make all laws and regulations which shall be necessary
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all
others vested by the present Constitution in the Government of
the Argentine Nation.
Chapter V.
Article 68.
Laws may originate in either of the Houses of Congress, by
bills presented by their members or by the Executive,
excepting those relative to the objects treated of in Article
44.
Article 69.
A bill being approved by the House wherein it originated,
shall pass for discussion to the other House. Being approved
by both, it shall pass to the Executive of the Nation for his
examination; and should it receive his approbation he shall
publish it as law.
Article 70.
Every bill not returned within ten working-days by the
Executive, shall be taken as approved by him.
Article 71.
No bill entirely rejected by one House, can be presented again
during that year. But should it be only amplified or corrected
by the revising House, it shall return to that wherein it
originated; and if there the additions or corrections be
approved by an absolute majority, it shall pass to the
Executive. If the additions or corrections be rejected, it
shall return to the revising House, and if here they be again
sanctioned by a majority of two-thirds of its members, it
shall pass to the other House, and it shall not be understood
that the said additions and corrections are rejected, unless
two-thirds of the members present should so vote.
Article 72.
A bill being rejected in whole or in part by the Executive, he
shall return it with his objections to the House in which it
originated; here it shall be debated again; and if it be
confirmed by a majority of two-thirds, it shall pass again to
the revising House. If both Houses should pass it by the same
majority, it becomes a law, and shall be sent to the Executive
for promulgation. In such case the votes of both Houses shall
be by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons so voting
shall be recorded, as well as the objections of the Executive,
and shall be immediately published in the daily-press. If the
Houses differ upon the objections, the bill cannot be renewed
during that year.
Article 73.
The following formula shall be used in the passage of the
laws: "The Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine
Nation in Congress assembled, etc.. decree, or sanction, with
the force of law."
Section II.--Chapter I.
Article 74.
The Executive power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
citizen, with the title of "President of the Argentine
Nation."
Article 75.
In case of the sickness, absence from the capital, death,
resignation or dismissal of the President, the Executive power
shall be exercised by the Vice-President of the Nation. In
case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the
President and Vice-President of the Nation, Congress will
determine which public functionary shall then fill the
Presidency, until the disability be removed or a new President
be elected.
Article 76.
No person except a natural-born citizen or a son of a
natural-born citizen brought forth abroad, shall be eligible
as President or Vice-President of the Nation; he is required
to belong to the Apostolic-Roman-Catholic communion, and
possess the other qualifications required to be elected
Senator.
Article 77.
The President and Vice-President shall hold office during the
term of six years; and cannot be re-elected except after an
interval of an equal period.
Article 78.
The President of the Nation shall cease in his functions the
very day on which his period of six years expires, and no
event whatever which may have interrupted it, can be a motive
for completing it at a later time.
Article 79.
The President and Vice-President shall receive a compensation
from the National Treasury, which cannot be altered during the
period for which they shall have been elected. During the same
period they cannot exercise any other office nor receive any
other emolument from the Nation, or any of its Provinces.
Article 80.
The President and Vice-President before entering upon the
execution of their offices, shall take the following oath
administered by the President of the Senate (the first time by
the President of the Constituent Congress) in Congress
assembled: "I (such an one) swear by God our Lord, and by
these Holy Evangelists, that I will faithfully and
patriotically execute the office of President (or
Vice-President) of the Nation, and observe and cause to be
faithfully observed, the Constitution of the Argentine Nation.
If I should not do so, let God and the Nation indict me."
{516}
Chapter II.
Article 81.
The election of the President and Vice-President of the
Nation, shall be made in the following manner:-The capital and
each of the Provinces shall by direct vote nominate a board of
electors, double the number of Deputies and Senators which
they send to Congress, with the same qualifications and under
the same form as those prescribed for the election of
Deputies. Deputies or Senators, or officers in the pay of the
Federal Government cannot be electors. The electors being met
in the National-capital and in that of their respective
Provinces, four months prior to the conclusion of the term of
the out-going President, they shall proceed by signed ballots,
to elect a President, and Vice-President, one of which shall
state the person as President, and the other the person as
Vice-President, for whom they vote. Two lists shall be made of
all the individuals elected as President, and other two also,
of those elected as Vice-President, with the number of votes
which each may have received. These lists shall be signed by
the electors, and shall be remitted closed and sealed, two of
them (one of each kind) to the President of the Provincial
Legislature, and to the President of the Municipality in the
capital, among whose records they shall remain deposited and
closed; the other two shall be sent to the President of the
Senate (the first time to the President of the Constituent
Congress).
Article 82.
The President of the Senate (the first time that of the
Constituent Congress) all the lists being received, shall open
them in the presence of both Houses. Four members of Congress
taken by lot and associated to the Secretaries, shall
immediately proceed to count the votes, and to announce the
number which may result in favor of each candidate for the
Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the Nation. Those who have
received an absolute majority of all the votes in both cases,
shall be immediately proclaimed President and Vice-President.
Article 83.
In case there be no absolute majority, on account of a
division of the votes, Congress shall elect one of the two
persons who shall have received the highest number of votes.
If the first majority should have fallen to a single person,
and the second to two or more, Congress shall elect among all
the persons who may have obtained the first and second
majorities.
Article 84.
This election shall be made by absolute plurality of votes,
and voting by name. If, on counting the first vote, no
absolute majority shall have been obtained, a second trial
shall be made, limiting the voting to the two persons who
shall have obtained the greatest number of suffrages at the
first trial. In case of an equal number of votes, the
operation shall be repeated, and should the result be the
same, then the President of the Senate (the first time that of
the Constituent Congress) shall decide it. No scrutiny or
rectification of these elections can be made, unless
three-fourth parts of all the members of the Congress be
present.
Article 85.
The election of the President and Vice-President of the
Nation, shall be concluded in a single meeting of the
Congress, and thereafter, the result and the electoral lists
shall be published in the daily-press.
Chapter III.
Article 86.
The President of the Nation has the following attributes:--
1. He is the supreme chief of the Nation, and is charged with
the general administration of the country.
2. He issues such instructions and regulations as may be
necessary for the execution of the laws of the Nation, taking
care not to alter their spirit with regulative exceptions.
3. He is the immediate and local chief of the National
capital.
4. He participates in making the laws according to the
Constitution; and sanctions and promulgates them.
5. He nominates the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the
Inferior Federal tribunals, and appoints them by and with the
consent and advice of the Senate.
6. He has power to pardon or commute penalties against
officers subject to Federal jurisdiction, preceded by a report
of the proper Tribunal, excepting in case of impeachment by
the House of Deputies.
7. He grants retiring-pensions, leaves of absence and
pawnbrokers' licences, in conformity to the laws of the
Nation.
8. He exercises the rights of National Patronage in the
presentation of Bishops for the cathedrals, choosing from a
ternary nomination of the Senate.
9. He grants letters-patent or retains the decrees of the
Councils, the bulls, briefs and rescripts of the Holy Roman
Pontiff, by and with the consent of the Supreme Court, and
must require a law for the same when they contain general and
permanent dispositions.
10. He appoints and removes Ministers Plenipotentiary and
Chargé d'Affaires, by and with the consent and advice of the
Senate; and himself alone appoints and removes the Ministers
of his Cabinet, the officers of the Secretary-ships, Consular
Agents, and the rest of the employés of the Administration
whose nomination is not otherwise ordained by this
Constitution.
11. He annually opens the Sessions of Congress, both Houses
being united for this purpose in the Senate Chamber, giving an
account to Congress on this occasion of the state of the
Nation, of the reforms provided by the Constitution, and
recommending to its consideration such measures as may be
judged necessary and convenient.
12. He prolongs the ordinary meetings of Congress or convokes
it in extra session, when a question of progress or an
important interest so requires.
13. He collects the rents of the Nation and decrees their
expenditure in conformity to the law or estimates of the
Public expenses.
14. He negotiates and signs those treaties of peace, of
commerce, of navigation, of alliance, of boundaries and of
neutrality, requisite to maintain good relations with foreign
powers; he receives their Ministers and admits their Consuls.
15. He is commander in chief of all the sea and land forces of
the Nation.
16. He confers, by and with the consent of the Senate, the
high military grades in the army and navy of the Nation; and
by himself on the field of battle.
17. He disposes of the land and sea forces, and takes charge
of their organization and distribution according to the
requirements of the Nation.
18. By the authority and approval of Congress, he declares war
and grants letters of marque and reprisal.
{517}
19. By and with the consent of the Senate, in case of foreign
aggression and for a limited time, he declares martial law in
one or more points of the Nation. In case of internal
commotion he has this power only when Congress is in recess,
because it is an attribute which belongs to this body. The
President exercises it under the limitations mentioned in
Article 23.
20. He may require from the chiefs of all the branches and
departments of the Administration, and through them from all
other employés, such reports as he may believe necessary, and
they are compelled to give them.
21. He cannot absent himself from the capital of the Nation
without permission of Congress. During the recess he can only
do so without permission on account of important objects of
public service.
22. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that
may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next
session.
Chapter IV.
Article 87.
Five Minister-Secretaries; to wit, of the Interior; of Foreign
Affairs; of Finance; of Justice, Worship and Public
Instruction; and of War and the Navy; shall have under their
charge the dispatch of National affairs, and they shall
counter-sign and legalize the acts of the President by means
of their signatures, without which requisite they shall not be
efficacious. A law shall determine the respective duties of
the Ministers.
Article 88.
Each Minister is responsible for the acts which he legalizes,
and collectively, for those which he agrees to with his
colleagues.
Article 89.
The Ministers cannot determine anything whatever, by
themselves, except what concerns the economical and
administrative regimen of their respective Departments.
Article 90.
As soon as Congress opens, the Ministers shall present to it a
detailed report of the State of the Nation, in all that
relates to their respective Departments.
Article 91.
They cannot be Senators or Deputies without resigning their
places as Ministers.
Article 92.
The Ministers can assist at the meetings of Congress and take
part in its debates, but they cannot vote.
Article 93.
They shall receive for their services a compensation
established by law, which shall not be increased or
diminished, in favor or against, the actual incumbents.
Section III.--Chapter I.
Article 94.
The Judicial Power of the Nation shall be exercised by a
Supreme Court of Justice, and by such other inferior Tribunals
as Congress may establish within the dominion of the Nation.
Article 95.
The President of the Nation cannot in any case whatever,
exercise Judicial powers, arrogate to himself any knowledge of
pending causes, or reopen those which have terminated.
Article 96.
The Judges of the Supreme Court and of the lower
National-Tribunals, shall keep their places quamdiu se bene
gesserit, and shall receive for their services a compensation
determined by law, which shall not be diminished in any manner
whatever during their continuance in office.
Article 97.
No one can be a member of the Supreme Court of Justice, unless
he shall have been an attorney at law of the Nation for eight
years, and shall possess the qualifications required for a
Senator.
Article 98.
At the first installation of the Supreme Court, the
individuals appointed shall take an oath administered by the
President of the Nation, to discharge their functions, by the
good and legal administration of Justice according to the
prescriptions of this Constitution. Thereafter, the oath shall
be taken before the President of the Court itself.
Article 99.
The Supreme Court shall establish its own internal and
economical regulations, and shall appoint its subaltern
employés.
Chapter II.
Article 100.
The Judicial power of the Supreme Court and the lower
National-Tribunals, shall extend to all cases arising under
this Constitution, the laws of the Nation with the reserve
made in clause 11 of Article 67, and by treaties with foreign
nations; to all cases affecting ambassadors, public Ministers
and foreign Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Nation shall be
party; to controversies between two or more Provinces; between
a Province and the citizens of another; between the citizens
of different Provinces; and between a Province or its
citizens, against a foreign State or citizen.
Article 101.
In these cases the Supreme Court shall exercise an appelate
jurisdiction according to such rules and exceptions as
Congress may prescribe; but in all cases affecting
ambassadors, ministers and foreign consuls, or those in which
a Province shall be a party, it shall exercise original and
exclusive jurisdiction.
Article 102.
The trial of all ordinary crimes except in cases of
impeachment, shall terminate by jury, so soon as this
institution be established in the Republic. These trials shall
be held in the same Province where the crimes shall have been
committed, but when not committed within the frontiers of the
Nation, but against International Law, Congress shall
determine by a special law the place where the trial shall
take effect.
Article 103.
Treason against the Nation shall only consist in levying war
against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. Congress shall fix by a special law the punishment of
treason; but it cannot go beyond the person of the criminal,
and no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood to
relatives of any grade whatever.
Article 104.
The Provinces keep all the powers not delegated by this
Constitution to the Federal Government, and those which were
expressly reserved by special compacts at the time of their
incorporation.
Article 105.
They create their own local institutions and are governed by
these. They elect their own Governors, their Legislators and
other Provincial functionaries, without intervention from the
Federal Government.
Article 106.
Each Province shall make its own Constitution in conformity
with the dispositions of Article 5.
Article 107.
The Provinces with the consent of Congress can celebrate
contracts among themselves for the purposes of administering
justice and promoting economical interests and works of common
utility, and also, can pass protective laws for the purpose
with their own resources, of promoting manufactures,
immigration, the building of railways and canals, the peopling
of their lands, the introduction and establishment of new
industries, the import of foreign-capital and the exploration
of their rivers.
{518}
Article 108.
The Provinces cannot exercise any powers delegated to the
Nation. They cannot celebrate compacts of a political
character, nor make laws on commerce or internal or external
navigation; nor establish Provincial Custom-Houses, nor coin
money, nor establish Banks of emission, without authority of
Congress; nor make civil, commercial, penal or mining Codes
after Congress shall have sanctioned those provided for in
this Constitution; nor pass laws upon citizenship or
naturalization; bankruptcy, counterfeiting money or public
State-documents; nor lay tonnage dues; nor arm vessels of war
or raise armies, save in the case of foreign invasion, or of a
danger so imminent that it admits of no delay, and then an
account thereof must be immediately given to the Federal
Government; or name or receive foreign agents; or admit new
religious orders.
Article 109.
No Province can declare or make war to another Province. Its
complaints must be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice
and be settled by it. Hostilities de facto are acts of
civil-war and qualified as seditious and tumultuous, which the
General Government must repress and suffocate according to
law.
Article 110.
The Provincial Governors are the natural agents of the Federal
Government to cause the fulfilment of the laws of the Nation.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
----------CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.
Introduced in 1867.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and 1866-1887.
CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
CONSTITUTION OF BOLIVIA.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.
----------End----------
CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.
The following text of the Constitution of the United States of
Brazil, adopted February 24, 1891, is taken from a translation
published in Bulletin No. 7 of the Bureau of American
Republics, Washington:
We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, united in
constitutional congress, to organize a free and democratic
regime, do establish, decree and promulgate the following
constitution of the Republic of the United States of Brazil:
Article 1.
The Brazilian nation, adopting as a form of government the
Federal Republic proclaimed November 15, 1889, constitutes
itself, by the perpetual and indissoluble union of its former
provinces, the United States of Brazil.
Article 2.
Each of the former provinces shall constitute a State, and the
former municipal district shall form the Federal District,
continuing to be the capital of the Union until the following
article shall be carried in to effect.
Article 3.
In the center there is allotted as the property of the Union a
zone of 14,400 square kilometres, which in due time shall be
laid off for the establishment of the future federal capital.
Sole paragraph.--After the change of site of the
capital, the present Federal District shall constitute a
State.
Article 4.
The States shall have the right to incorporate themselves one
with another, sub-divide themselves, dismember themselves to
join with others or form new States, with the consent of the
respective local legislatures in two successive annual
sessions and the approval of the national Congress.
Article 5.
It shall be the duty of each State to provide, at its own
expense, for the necessities of its government and
administration; but the Union shall extend assistance to any
State which, in case of public calamity, shall demand it.
Article 6.
The Federal Government shall not interfere in matters
pertaining peculiarly to the States, save:
(1) To repel foreign invasion, or the invasion of one State by
another.
(2) To maintain the federative republican form of government.
(3) To reestablish order and tranquillity in the States at the
request of the respective governments.
(4) To assure the execution of the laws and federal decrees.
Article 7.
It is the exclusive prerogative of the Union to decree:
(1) Duties on imports from foreign countries.
(2) Duties of entry, departure, and stay of vessels; the
coasting trade for national articles being free of duties, as
well as for foreign merchandise that has already paid an
import duty.
(3) Stamp duties, save the restrictions imposed by article 9,
§1. No.1.
(4) Postal and federal telegraphic taxes.
§1. The Union alone shall have the power:
(1) To establish banks of emission.
(2) To create and maintain custom-houses.
§2. The taxes decreed by the Union shall be uniform for all
the States.
§3. The laws of the Union and the acts and decisions of its
authorities shall be executed throughout the country by
federal officials, except that the enforcement of the former
may be committed to the governments of the States, with the
consent of the said States.
Article 8.
The Federal Government is forbidden to make distinctions and
preferences in favor of the ports of any of the States against
those of others.
Article 9.
The States alone are competent to decree taxes:
(1) On the exportation of merchandise of their own production.
(2) On landed property.
(3) On the transmission of property.
(4) On industries and professions.
§ 1. The States also have the exclusive right to decree:
(1) Stamp duties on instruments emanating from their
respective governments and business of their internal economy.
(2) Contributions touching their own telegraphs and postal
service.
§ 2. The products of the other States are exempt from imposts
in the State whence they are exported.
§3. It is lawful for a State to levy duties on imports of
foreign goods only when intended for consumption in its own
territory; but it shall, in such case, cover into the federal
treasury the amount of duties collected.
§4. The right is reserved to the States of establishing
telegraph lines between the different points of their own
territory, and between these and those of other States not
served by federal lines; but the Union may take possession of
them when the general welfare shall require.
{519}
Article 10.
The several States are prohibited from taxing the federal
property or revenue, or anything in the service of the Union,
and vice versa.
Article 11.
It is forbidden to the States, as well as to the Unions:
(1) To impose duties on the products of the other States, or
of foreign countries, in transit through the territory of any
State, or from one State to another, as also on the vehicles,
whether by land or water, by which they are transported.
(2) To establish, aid, or embarrass the exercise of religious
worship.
(3) To enact ex post facto laws.
Article 12.
In addition to the sources of revenue set forth in articles 7
and 9, it shall be lawful for the Union, as well as for the
States, cumulatively or otherwise, to create any others
whatsoever which may not be in contravention of the terms of
articles 7, 9, and 11, § 1.
Article 13.
The right or the Union and of the States to legislate in
regard to railways and navigation of internal waters shall be
regulated by federal law. Sole paragraph.--The
coastwise trade shall be carried on in national vessels.
Article 14.
The land and naval forces are permanent national institutions,
intended for the defense of the country from foreign attack
and the maintenance of the laws of the land. Within the limits
of the law, the armed forces are from their nature held to
obedience, each rank to its superior, and bound to support all
constitutional institutions.
Article 15.
The legislative, executive, and judicial powers are organs of
the national sovereignty, harmonious and independent among
themselves.
Article 16.
The legislative power is vested in the national Congress, with
the sanction of the President of the Republic.
§ 1. The national Congress is composed of two branches, the
Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
§ 2. The elections for senators and for deputies shall be held
simultaneously throughout the country.
§ 3. No person shall be senator and deputy at the same time.
Article 17.
The Congress shall assemble in the federal capital on the 3d
day of May of each year, unless some other day shall be fixed
by law, without being convoked, and shall continue in session
4 months from the date of the opening, and may be prorogued,
adjourned, or convoked in extraordinary session.
§ 1. The Congress alone shall have the power to deliberate on
the prorogation or extension of its session.
§ 2. Each legislature shall last for 3 years.
§ 3. The governor of any State in which there shall be a
vacancy in the representation, including the case of
resignation, shall order a new election to be held at once.
Article 18.
The Chamber and the Senate shall hold their sessions apart and
in public, unless otherwise resolved by a majority vote, and
shall deliberate only when, in each of the chambers, there
shall be present an absolute majority of its members. Sole
paragraph.--To each of the chambers shall belong the right
to verify and recognize the powers of its members, to choose
its own presiding officers, to organize its internal
government, to regulate the service of its own police rules,
and to choose its own secretaries.
Article 19.
The deputies and senators can not be held to account for their
opinions, expressions, and votes in the discharge of their
mandate.
Article 20.
Deputies and senators, from the time of receiving their
certificate of election until a new election, can not be
arrested or proceeded against criminally without the
permission of their respective chambers, except in the case of
a flagrant crime, in which bail is inadmissible. In such case,
the prosecution being carried to exclusive decision, the
prosecuting authority shall send the court records to the
respective chamber for its decision on the prosecution of the
charge, unless the accused shall prefer immediate judgment.
Article 21.
The members of the two chambers, on taking their seats, shall
take a formal obligation, in public session, to perform their
duties faithfully.
Article 22.
During the sessions the senators and deputies shall receive an
equal pecuniary salary and mileage, which shall be fixed by
Congress at the end of each session for the following one.
Article 23.
No member of the Congress, from the time of his election, can
make contracts with the executive power or receive from it any
paid commission or employment.
§ 1. Exceptions to this prohibition are:
(1) Diplomatic missions.
(2) Commissions or military commands.
(3) Advancement in rank and legal promotion.
§ 2.
No deputy or senator, however, can accept an appointment for
any mission, commission, or command mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2
of the preceding paragraph, without the consent of the chamber
to which he belongs, when such acceptance would prevent the
exercise of his legislative duties, except in case of war or
such as involve the honor or integrity of the nation.
Article 24.
No deputy or senator can be president or form part of a
directory of any bank, company, or enterprise which enjoys the
favors of the Federal Government defined in and by law.
Sole paragraph.--Nonobservance of the provisions of the
foregoing article by any deputy or senator shall involve the
loss of his seat.
Article 25.
The legislative commission shall be incompatible with the
exercise of any other functions during the sessions.
Article 26.
The conditions for eligibility to the national Congress are:
(1) To be in possession of the rights of Brazilian citizenship
and to be registered as a voter.
(2) For the Chamber, to have been for more than 4 years a
Brazilian citizen; and for the Senate, for more than 6 years.
This provision does not include those citizens referred to in
No.4, article 69.
Article 27.
The Congress shall by special legislation declare the cases of
electoral incompetency.
Article 28.
The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of the
representatives of the people, elected by the States and the
Federal District by direct suffrage, the representation of the
minority being guarantied.
§ 1. The number of the deputies shall be fixed by law in such
a way as not to exceed one for each 70,000 inhabitants, and
that there shall not be less than four for each State.
§ 2. To this end the Federal Government shall at once order a
census to be taken of the population of the Republic, which
shall be revised every 10 years.
Article 29.
To the Chamber belongs the initiative in the adjournment of
the legislative sessions and in all legislation in regard to
taxation, to the determination of the size of the army and
navy, in the discussion of propositions from the executive
power, and in the decision to proceed or not in charges
against the President of the Republic under the terms of
article 53, and against the ministers of state in crimes
connected with those of the said President.
{520}
Article 30.
The Senate shall be composed of citizens eligible under the
terms of article 26 and more than 35 years of age, to the
number of three senators for each State and three for the
Federal District, chosen in the same manner as the deputies.
Article 31.
The mandate of a senator shall continue for 9 years, and
one-third of the Senate shall be renewed every 3 years.
Sole paragraph.--A senator elected in place of another
shall exercise his mandate during the remainder of
the term of the latter.
Article 32.
The Vice President of the Republic shall be the president of
the Senate, where he shall vote only in case of tie, and shall
be replaced in case of absence or impediment by the vice
president of that body.
Article 33.
The Senate alone shall have the power to try and sentence the
President of the Republic and the other federal officers
designated by the constitution, under the conditions and in
the manner which it prescribes.
§ 1. The Senate, when sitting as a tribunal of justice, shall
be presided over by the president of the federal supreme
court.
§ 2. It shall not pass sentence of condemnation unless
two-thirds of its members be present.
§ 3. It shall not impose other penalties than the loss of
office and prohibition from holding any other, without
prejudice to the action of ordinary justice against the
condemned.
Article 34.
The national Congress shall have exclusive power:
(1) To estimate the revenue, and fix the expenditures of the
Federal Government annually, and take account of the receipts
and expenditures of each financial budget.
(2) To authorize the executive to contract loans and make
other operations of credit.
(3) To legislate in regard to the public debt and furnish
means for its payment.
(4) To control the collection and disposition of the national
revenue.
(5) To regulate international commerce, as well as that of the
States with each other and with the Federal District; to
establish and regulate the collection of customs duties in the
ports, create or abolish warehouses of deposit.
(6) To legislate in regard to navigation of rivers running
through more than one State, or through foreign territory.
(7) To determine the weight, value, inscription, type, and
denomination of the currency.
(8) To create banks of emission, legislate in regard to this
emission and to tax it.
(9) To fix the standard of weights and measures.
(10) To determine definitely the boundaries of the States
between each other, those of the Federal District, and those
of the national territory with the adjoining nations.
(11) To authorize the Government to declare war, if there be
no recourse to arbitration or in case of failure of this, and
to make peace.
(12) To decide definitively in regard to treaties and
conventions with foreign nations.
(13) To remove the capital of the Union.
(14) To extend aid to the States in the case referred to in
article 5.
(15) To legislate in regard to federal postal and telegraph
service.
(16) To adopt the necessary measures for the protection of the
frontiers.
(17) To fix every year the number of the land and naval
forces.
(18) To make laws for the organization of the army and navy.
(19) To grant or refuse to foreign forces passage through the
territory of the country to carry on military operations.
(20) To mobilize and make use of the national guard or local
militia in the cases designated by the Constitution.
(21) To declare a state of siege at one or more points in the
national territory, in the emergency of an attack by foreign
forces, or internal disturbance, and to approve or suspend the
state of siege proclaimed by the executive power or its
responsible agents in the absence of the Congress.
(22) To regulate the conditions and methods of elections for
federal offices throughout the country.
(23) To legislate upon the civil, criminal, and commercial
laws and legal procedures of the federal judiciary.
(24) To establish uniform naturalization laws.
(25) To create and abolish federal public offices, to fix the
duties of the same, and designate their salaries.
(26) To organize the federal judiciary according to the terms
of article 55 and the succeeding, section 3.
(27) To grant amnesty.
(28) To commute and pardon penalties imposed upon federal
officers for offenses arising from their responsibility.
(29) To make laws regarding Government lands and mines.
(30) To legislate in regard to the municipal organization of
the Federal District, as well as to the police, the superior
instruction and other services which in the capital may be
reserved for the Government of the Union.
(31) To govern by special legislation those points of the
territory of the Republic needed for the establishment of
arsenals, other establishments or institutions for federal
uses.
(32) To settle cases of extradition between the States.
(33) To enact such laws and resolutions as may be necessary
for the exercise of the powers belonging to the Union.
(34) To enact the organic laws necessary for the complete
execution of the requirements of the Constitution.
(35) To prorogue and adjourn its own sessions.
Article 35.
It shall belong likewise to the Congress, but not exclusively:
(1) To watch over the Constitution and the laws, and provide
for necessities of a federal character.
(2) To promote in the country the development of literature,
the arts, and sciences, together with immigration,
agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, without privileges
such as would obstruct the action of the local governments.
(3) To create institutions of higher instruction and of high
school education in the States.
(4) To provide for high school instruction in the Federal
District.
Article 36.
Save the exceptions named in article 27, all bills may
originate, indifferently, in the Chamber or in the Senate, and
may be introduced by any of their members.
Article 37.
A bill, after being passed in one of the chambers, shall be
submitted to the other, and, if the latter shall approve the
same, it shall send it to the executive, who, if he approve
it, shall sanction and promulgate it.
§ 1. If, however, the President of the Republic shall consider
it unconstitutional, or contrary to the good of the nation, he
shall refuse his sanction to the same within 10 working days,
counted from that on which he received it (the bill), and
shall return it, within the same period, to the chamber in
which it originated, with his reasons for his refusal.
§ 2. The failure of the executive to signify his disapproval
within the above-named 10 days shall be considered as an
approval, and in case his sanction be refused after the close
of the session of the Congress, the President shall make
public his reasons therefor.
{521}
§ 3. The bill sent back to the chamber where it originated
shall be discussed and voted upon by call of names, and shall
be considered as passed if it obtain two-thirds of the votes
of the members present; and, in this case, it shall be sent to
the other chamber, whence, if it receive the same majority, it
shall return, as a law, to the executive to be formally
promulgated.
§ 4. The sanction and promulgation shall be effected in the
following forms:
(1) "The national Congress enacts and I sanction the following
law (or resolution)."
(2) "The national Congress enacts and I promulgate the
following law (or resolution)."
Article 38.
If the law be not promulgated by the President of the Republic
within 48 hours, in the cases provided for in §§ 2 and 3 of
the preceding article, the president of the Senate, or the
vice president, if the former shall not do so in the same
space of time, shall promulgate it, making use of the
following formula: "I, president (or vice president) of the
Senate, make known to whomsoever these presents may come, that
the national Congress enacts and promulgates the following law
(or resolution)."
Article. 39.
A bill from one chamber, amended in the other, shall return to
the former, which, if it accept the amendments, shall send it,
changed to conform with the same, to the executive.
§ 1. In the contrary case, it shall go back to the amending
chamber, where the alterations shall be considered as
approved, if they receive the vote of two-thirds of the
members present; in the latter case, the bill shall return to
the chamber where it originated, and there the amendments can
be rejected only by a two-thirds vote.
§ 2. If the alterations be rejected by such vote, the bill
shall be submitted without them to the approval of the
executive.
Article 40.
Bills finally rejected or not approved, shall not be presented
again in the same legislative session.
Article 41.
The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the
United States of Brazil, as elective chief of the nation.
§ 1. The Vice President, elected simultaneously with the
President, shall serve in place of the latter in case of
impediment and succeed him in case of vacancy in the
Presidency.
§ 2. In case of impediment or vacancy in the Vice Presidency,
the following officers, in the order named, shall be called to
the Presidency: The vice president of the Senate, the
president of the Chamber of Deputies, the president of the
federal supreme court.
§ 3. The following are the conditions of eligibility to the
Presidency or Vice Presidency of the Republic:
(1) Must be a native of Brazil.
(2) Must be in the exercise of political rights.
(3) Must be more than 35 years of age.
Article 42.
In case of vacancy from any cause in the Presidency or Vice
Presidency before the expiration of the first 2 years of the
Presidential term, a new election shall be held.
Article 43.
The President shall hold his office during 4 years, and is not
eligible for reelection for the next succeeding term.
§ 1. The Vice President who shall fill the Presidency during
the last year of the Presidential term shall not be eligible
to the Presidency for the next term of that office.
§ 2. On the same day on which his Presidential term shall
cease the President shall, without fail, cease to exercise the
functions of his office, and the newly elected President shall
at once succeed him.
§ 3. If the latter should be hindered or should fail to do so,
the succession shall be effected in accordance with §§ 1 and 2
of article 41.
§ 4. The first Presidential term shall expire on the 15th of
November, 1894.
Article 44.
On taking possession of his office, the President, in a
session of the Congress, or, if it be not assembled, before
the federal supreme court, shall pronounce the following
affirmation: "I promise to maintain the federal Constitution
and comply with its provisions with perfect loyalty, to
promote the general welfare of the Republic, to observe its
laws, and support the union, integrity, and independence of
the nation."
Article 45.
The President and Vice President shall not leave the national
territory without the permission of the Congress, under
penalty of loss of office.
Article 46.
The President and Vice President shall receive the salary
fixed by the Congress in the preceding Presidential term.
Article 47.
The President and Vice President shall be chosen by direct
suffrage of the nation and an absolute majority of the votes.
§ 1. The election shall take place on the first day of March
in the last year of the Presidential term, and the counting of
the votes cast at the different precincts shall at once be
made in the respective capitals of the States and in the
federal capital. The Congress shall make the count at its
first session of the same year, with any number of members
present.
§ 2. If none of those voted for shall have received an
absolute majority, the Congress shall elect, by a majority of
votes of those present, one of the two who, in the direct
election, shall have received the highest number of votes. In
case of a tie the older shall be considered elected.
§ 3. The manner of the election and of the counting of the
votes shall be regulated by ordinary legislation.
§ 4. The relatives, both by consanguinity and by marriage, in
the first and second degrees, of the President and Vice
President shall be ineligible for the offices of President and
Vice President, provided the said officials are in office at
the time of the election or have left the office even 6 months
before.
Article 48.
To the President of the Republic shall belong the exclusive
right to--
(1) Sanction, promulgate, and make public the laws and
resolutions of the Congress; issue decrees, instructions, and
regulations for their faithful execution.
(2) Choose and dismiss at will the cabinet officers.
(3) Exercise or appoint some one to exercise supreme command
over the land and naval forces of the United States of Brazil,
as well as over the local police, when called to arms for the
internal or external defense of the Union.
(4) Govern and distribute, under the laws of the Congress,
according to the necessities of the National Government, the
land and naval forces.
(5) Dispose of the offices, both military and civil, of a
federal character, with the exceptions specified in the
Constitution.
(6) Pardon crimes and commute penalties for offenses subject
to federal jurisdiction, save in the cases mentioned in
article 34, No. 28, and article 52, § 2.
(7) Declare war and make peace, under the provisions of
article 34, No. 11.
(8) Declare war at once in case of foreign invasion or
aggression.
{522}
(9) Give an annual statement to the national Congress of the
condition of the country, with a recommendation
of pressing provisions and reforms, through a message,
which he shall send to the secretary of the Senate on the day
of the opening of the legislative session.
(10) Convoke the Congress in extra session.
(11) Appoint the federal judges when proposed by the supreme
court.
(12) Appoint the members of the federal supreme court and
ministers of the diplomatic corps, with the approval of the
senate; and, in the absence of the Congress, appoint them in
commission until considered by the senate.
(13) Appoint the other members of the diplomatic corps and
consular agents.
(14) Maintain relations with foreign states.
(15) Declare, directly, or through his responsible agents, a
state of siege at any point of the national territory, in case
of foreign aggression or serious internal disturbance.
(Article 6, No.3; article 34, No. 21; and article 80.)
(16) Set on foot international negotiations, celebrate
agreements, conventions, and treaties, always ad referendum to
the Congress, and approve those made by the States in
conformity with article 65, submitting them when necessary to
the authority of the Congress.
Article 49.
The President of the Republic shall be assisted by the
ministers of state (cabinet officers), agents of his
confidence, who sign the acts and preside over their
respective departments into which the federal administration
is divided.
Article 50.
The cabinet ministers shall not exercise any other employment
or function of a public nature, be eligible to the Presidency
or Vice Presidency of the Union, or be elected deputy or
senator. Sole paragraph.--Any deputy or senator, who
shall accept the position of cabinet minister, shall lose his
seat in the respective chamber, and a new election shall at
once be held, in which he shall not be voted for.
Article 51.
The cabinet ministers shall not appear at the sessions of the
Congress, and shall communicate with that body in writing only
or by personal conference with the committees of the chambers.
The annual report of the ministers shall be addressed to the
President of the Republic, and distributed to all the members
of the Congress.
Article 52.
The cabinet ministers shall not be responsible to the Congress
or to the courts for advice given to the President of the
Republic.
§ 1. They shall be responsible, nevertheless, with respect to
their acts, for crimes defined in the law.
§ 2. For common crimes and those for which they are
responsible they shall be prosecuted and tried by the federal
supreme court, and for those committed jointly with the
President of the Republic, by the authority competent to judge
this latter.
Article 53.
The President of the United States of Brazil shall be brought
to trial and judgment, after the Chamber of Deputies shall
have decided that he should be tried on the charges made
against him, in the federal supreme court, in the case of
common crimes, and in those of responsibility, in the Senate.
Sole paragraph.--As soon as it shall be decided to try
him on the charges brought, the President shall be suspended
in the exercise of the duties of his office.
Article 54.
Crimes of responsibility on the part of the President of the
Republic are such as are directed against--
(1) The political existence of the Union.
(2) The Constitution and the form of the Federal Government.
(3) The free exercise of the political powers.
(4) The legal enjoyment and exercise of political or
individual rights.
(5) The internal security of the country.
(6) The purity of the administration.
(7) The constitutional keeping and use of the public funds.
(8) The financial legislation enacted by the Congress.
§ 1. These offenses shall be defined in a special law.
§ 2. Another law shall provide for the charges, the trial, and
the judgment.
§ 3. Both these laws shall be enacted in the first session of
the first Congress.
Article 55.
The judicial power of the Union shall be lodged in a federal
supreme court, sitting in the capital of the Republic, and as
many inferior federal courts and tribunals, distributed
through the country, as the Congress shall create.
Article 56.
The federal supreme court shall be composed of fifteen
justices, appointed under the provisions of article 48, No.
12, from among the oldest thirty citizens of well-known
knowledge and reputation who may be eligible to the Senate.
Article 57.
The federal justices shall hold office for life, being
removable solely by judicial sentence.
§ 1. Their salaries shall be fixed by law of the Congress, and
can not be diminished.
§ 2. The Senate shall try the members of the federal supreme
court for crimes of responsibility, and this latter the lower
federal judges.
Article 58.
The federal courts shall choose their presidents from among
their own members, and shall organize their respective
clerical corps.
§ 1. In these corps the appointment and dismissal of the
respective clerks, as well as the filling of the judicial
offices in the respective judicial districts, shall belong to
the presidents of the respective courts.
§ 2. The President of the Republic shall appoint from among
the members of the federal supreme court the attorney-general
of the Republic, whose duties shall be defined by law.
Article 59.
To the federal supreme court shall belong the duty of--
(1) Trying and judging by original and exclusive
jurisdiction--
(a) The President of the Republic for common crimes, and the
cabinet ministers in the cases specified in article 52.
(b) The ministers of the diplomatic corps for common crimes
and those of responsibility.
(c) Cases and disputes between the States and the Union, or
between the States one with another.
(d) Disputes and claims between foreign states and the Union,
or between foreign nations and the States.
(e) Conflicts between the federal courts one with another, or
between these and those of the States, as well as those
between the courts of one State and those of another.
(2) Deciding, on appeal, questions pronounced upon by the
lower federal courts and tribunals, as well as those mentioned
in § 1 of the present article and in article 60.
(3) Reviewing the proceedings of finished trials, under the
provisions of article 81.
§ 1. Decisions of State courts in last appeal can be carried
to the federal supreme court--
(a) When the validity or application of the federal laws or
treaties is called in question and the decision of the State
court shall be against the same.
(b) When the validity of laws or acts of the governments of
the States in respect to the Constitution or of the federal
laws is contested and the State court shall have decided in
favor of the validity of the acts or laws in question.
§ 2. In the cases which involve the application of the laws of
the States, the federal court shall consult the jurisprudence
of the local tribunals, and vice versa, the State court shall
consider that of the federal tribunals when the interpretation
of the laws of the Union is involved.
{523}
Article 60.
It shall belong to the federal courts to decide--
(a) Cases in which the plaintiff or the defendant shall rest
the case on some provision of the federal Constitution.
(b) All suits brought against the Government of the Union or
the national treasury based on constitutional provisions, on
the laws and regulations of the executive power, or on
contracts made with the said Government.
(c) Suits arising from compensations, claims, indemnification
of damages, or any others whatsoever brought by the Government
of the Union against private individuals, and vice versa.
(d) Litigations between a State and the citizens of another,
or between citizens of different States having differences in
their laws.
(e) Suits between foreign states and Brazilian citizens.
(f) Actions begun by foreigners, and based either on contracts
with the Federal Government or on conventions or treaties of
the Union with other nations.
(g) Questions of maritime law and navigation, whether on the
sea or on the rivers and lakes of the country.
(h) Questions of international law, whether criminal or civil.
(i) Political crimes.
§ 1. Congress is forbidden to commit any part of the federal
jurisdiction to the State courts.
§ 2. Sentences and orders of the federal judges will be
executed by federal court officers, and the local police shall
assist them when called upon by the same.
Article 61.
The decisions of the State courts or tribunals in matters
within their competence shall put an end to the suits and
questions, except as to
(1) habeas corpus, or
(2) effects of a foreigner deceased in cases not provided for
by convention or treaty. In such cases there shall be
voluntary recourse to the federal supreme court.
Article 62.
The State courts shall not have the power to intervene in
questions submitted to the federal tribunals, or to annul,
alter, or suspend the sentences or orders of these latter;
and, reciprocally, the federal judiciary can not interfere in
questions submitted to the State courts, or annul, alter, or
suspend their decisions or orders, except in the cases
provided in this Constitution.
Article 63.
Each State shall be governed by the constitution and laws
which it shall adopt, respect being observed for the
constitutional principles of the Union.
Article 64.
The unexplored mines and wild lands lying within the States
shall belong to these States respectively; and to the Union
only as much territory as may be necessary for the defense of
the frontiers, for fortifications, military works, and federal
railways. Sole paragraph.--The national properties,
not necessary for the service of the Union, shall pass to the
domain of the States in whose territory they may be situated.
Article 65.
The States shall have the right to--
(1) Conclude agreements and conventions among themselves, if
such be not of a political character. (Article 48, No. 16.)
(2) Exercise in general any and every power or right not
denied expressly by the Constitution, or implicitly in its
express terms.
Article 66.
It is forbidden to the States to--
(1) Refuse to recognize public documents of the Union, or of
any of the States, of a legislative, administrative, or
judicial character.
(2) Reject the currency or notes issued by banks, which
circulate by act of the Federal Government.
(3) Make or declare war, one with another, or make reprisals.
(4) Refuse the extradition of criminals demanded by the
justice of other States, or of the Federal District, in
conformity with the laws of Congress which relate to this
subject. (Article 41, No. 32.)
Article 67.
Save the restrictions specified in the Constitution, and the
federal laws, the Federal District shall be governed directly
by the municipal authorities. Sole paragraph.--Expenses
of a local character in the capital of the Republic must be
provided for exclusively by the municipal authorities.
Article 68.
The States shall organize themselves in such a manner as to
assure the autonomy of the municipalities in everything that
concerns their peculiar interests.
Article 69.
The following shall be Brazilian citizens:
(1) Natives of Brazil, though of foreign parentage (father),
provided he be not in the service of his nation.
(2) Sons of a Brazilian father, and illegitimate sons of a
Brazilian mother, born in foreign parts, if they take up their
residence (domicile) in the republic.
(3) Sons of a Brazilian father who may be in another country
in the service of the Republic, although they do not make
their domicile in Brazil.
(4) Foreigners, who, being in Brazil on the 15th of November,
1889, shall not declare, within 6 months from the time when
the Constitution enters into force, their desire to preserve
their original nationality.
(5) Foreigners who possess property (real estate) in Brazil
and are married to Brazilian women, or have Brazilian
children, provided they reside in Brazil, unless they shall
declare their intention of not changing their nationality.
(6) Foreigners naturalized in any other way.
Article 70.
Citizens of more than 21 years of age, and registered
according to law, shall be electors.
§ 1. The following shall not be registered as electors for
federal or State elections:
(1) Beggars.
(2) Persons ignorant of the alphabet.
(3) Soldiers on pay, except alumni of the military schools of
higher instruction.
(4) Members of monastic orders, companies, congregations, or
communities of whatsoever denomination, who are subject to
vows of obedience, rule, or statute, which implies the
surrender of individual liberty.
§ 2. Citizens who can not be registered shall not be eligible.
Article 71.
The rights of the Brazilian citizen can be suspended or lost
only in the following cases:
§ 1. The rights may be suspended--
(a) For physical or moral incapacity.
(b) For criminal conviction, during the operation of the
sentence.
§ 2. They may be lost--
(a) By naturalization in a foreign country.
(b) By acceptance of employment or pension from a foreign
power, without permission of the federal executive.
§ 3. The means of reacquiring lost rights of the Brazilian
citizen shall be specified by federal law.
Article 72.
The Constitution secures to Brazilians and foreigners residing
in the country the inviolability of their rights touching
individual liberty, and security, and property, in the
following terms:
§ 1. No person shall be forced to do, or leave undone,
anything whatever, except by virtue of law.
§ 2. Before the law all persons are equal. The Republic does
not recognize privileges of birth, or titles of nobility, and
abolishes all existing honorary orders, with all their
prerogatives and decorations, as well as all hereditary and
conciliar titles.
{524}
§ 3. All persons and religious professions may exercise,
publicly and freely, the right of worship, and may associate
themselves for that purpose, acquire property, observance
being had to the provisions of the common law.
§ 4. The Republic recognizes only the civil marriage, the
celebration of which shall be gratuitous.
§ 5. The cemeteries shall be secular in character, and be
managed by the municipal authorities, being free to all
religious sects for the exercise of their respective rites as
regards their members, provided they do not offend public
morals or the laws.
§ 6. The instruction given in the public institutions shall be
secular.
§ 7. No sect or church shall receive official aid, nor be
dependent on, nor connected with, the Government of the Union,
or of the States.
§ 8. All persons have the right of free association and
assembly, without arms; and the police force shall not
intervene, except to maintain the public order.
§ 9. Any person whatsoever shall have the right to address, by
petition, the public powers, denounce abuses of the
authorities, and appeal to the responsibility of the accused.
§ 10. In time of peace any person may, without passport, enter
or leave the territory of the Republic, with his fortune and
goods, whenever and however he may choose.
§ 11. The house is the inviolable asylum of the person; no one
can enter it at night without the consent of the inhabitant,
except to aid the victims of a crime or disaster; nor by day,
unless in the cases and in the form prescribed by law.
§ 12. The expression of opinion shall be free, in respect to
whatever subject, through the press or through the tribune,
without subjection to censorship, each one being responsible
for the abuses he may commit, in the cases and in the form
prescribed by law. Anonymous publications are forbidden.
§ 13. Cases of flagrante delicto alone excepted, no arrest
shall be made, unless after declaration of the charge (save in
cases determined by law), and by written order of the
competent authorities.
§ 14. No person shall be kept in prison without charge
formally made, save the exceptions mentioned in the law, or
taken to prison, or detained there, if he give bail, in cases
where such is lawful.
§ 15. No person shall be condemned, except by competent
authority, and in virtue of law already existing and in the
form prescribed by it.
§ 16. The law shall secure to the accused the fullest defense
by all the recourses and means essential to the same,
including the notice of the charge, delivered to the prisoner
within 24 hours and signed by the proper authority along with
the names of the accusers and witnesses.
§ 17. The rights of property are maintained in all their
plenitude, and no disappropriation shall be made, except from
necessity or public utility, and indemnity shall, in such
cases, be made beforehand. Mines belong to the owners of the
soil, under the limitations to be established by the law to
encourage the development of this branch of industry.
§ 18. Correspondence under seal is inviolable.
§ 19. No penalty shall extend beyond the person of the
delinquent.
§ 20. The penalty of the galleys is abolished, as also
judicial banishment.
§ 21. The death penalty is abolished, except in the cases
under military law in time of war.
§ 22. The habeas corpus shall always be granted when the
individual suffers violence or compulsion, through illegality
or abuse of power, or considers himself in imminent danger of
the same.
§ 23. There shall be no privileged tribunal, except in such
cases as, from their nature, belong to special courts.
§ 24. The free exercise of any profession, moral,
intellectual, or industrial, is guarantied.
§ 25. Industrial inventions belong to their authors, to whom
the law will grant a temporary privilege, or to whom the
Congress will give a reasonable premium, when it is desirable
to make the invention public property.
§ 26. To authors of literary and artistic works is guarantied
the exclusive right of reproducing them through the press or
by any other mechanical process, and their heirs shall enjoy
the same right during the space of time determined by the law.
§ 27. The law shall also secure the rights of property in
trade-marks.
§ 28. No Brazilian can be deprived of his civil and political
rights on account of religious belief or duty, nor be exempted
from the performance of any civic duty.
§ 29. Those who shall claim exemption from any burden imposed
by the laws of the Republic on its citizens, on account of
religious belief, or who shall accept any foreign decoration
or title of nobility, shall lose all their political rights.
§ 30. No tax of any kind shall be collected except in virtue
of a law authorizing the same.
§ 31. The institution of trial by jury is maintained.
Article 73.
Public offices, civil or military, are accessible to all
Brazilian citizens, always observing the conditions of
particular capacity fixed by the law; but the accumulation of
remunerations is forbidden.
Article 74.
Commissions, offices, and positions not subject to removal are
guarantied in all their plenitude.
Article 75.
Only such public officials as have become infirm in the
service of the nation shall be retired on pay.
Article 76.
Officers of the army and navy shall lose their commissions
only in case of condemnation to more than 2 years in prison,
pronounced in judgment by the competent tribunals.
Article 77.
There shall be a special court for the trial of military
offenses committed by soldiers or marines.
§ 1. This court shall be composed of a supreme military
tribunal, whose members shall hold their seats for life, and
of the councils necessary for the formulation of the charge
and the judgment of the crimes.
§ 2. The organization and powers of the supreme military
tribunal shall be determined by law.
Article 78.
The enumeration of the rights and guaranties expressed in the
Constitution does not exclude other guaranties and rights, not
enumerated, but resulting from the form of government
established and principles settled by said Constitution.
Article 79.
The citizen vested with the functions of either of these three
federal powers shall not exercise those of another.
Article 80.
Any part of the territory of the Union may be declared in
state of siege, and the constitutional guaranties suspended
for a determined period, whenever the security of the Republic
so demands in case of foreign aggression or intestine
disturbance. (Article 34, No. 21.)
§ 1. The power to execute the above provision may, if the
Congress be not in session and the country be in imminent
peril, be used by the federal executive. (Article 48, No. 15.)
§ 2. In the exercise of this power, during the state of siege,
the executive shall be restricted to the following
measures of repression against persons:
{525}
(1) To their detention in a place not allotted to persons
accused of common crimes.
(2) To banishment to other parts of the national territory.
§ 3. As soon as the Congress shall have assembled, the
President of the Republic shall make a report to that body of
the exceptional measures which may have been taken.
§ 4. The authorities who shall have ordered such measures
shall be responsible for any abuses that may have been
committed.
Article 81.
In criminal cases, trials concluded may be reviewed at any
time, in favor of the condemned parties, by the federal
supreme court, for the purpose of correcting or of confirming
the sentence.
§ 1. The law shall determine the cases and the form of such
revision, which may be asked for by the condemned, by anyone
of the people, or by the attorney-general of the Republic, ex
officio.
§ 2. In such revision the penalties imposed by the sentence
reviewed can not be increased.
§ 3. The provisions of the present article are applicable to
military trials.
Article 82.
Public officers shall be strictly responsible for the abuses
and omissions that occur in the exercise of the duties of
their offices, as well as for the indulgences and negligences
for which they do not hold their subordinates responsible.
Sole paragraph.--They shall all be bound by formal
obligation, on taking possession of their offices, to
discharge the lawful duties of the same.
Article 83.
Until revoked, the laws of the ancien regime shall remain in
force, in as far as they are not, explicitly or implicitly,
contrary to the system of government established by the
Constitution, and to the principles laid down in the same.
Article 84.
The federal government guaranties the payment of the public
debt, both internal and foreign.
Article 85.
The officers of the line and of the annexed classes of the
navy shall have the same commissions and advantage as those of
the army of corresponding rank.
Article 86.
Every Brazilian shall be bound to military service in defense
of the country and the Constitution, as provided by the
federal laws.
Article 87.
The federal army shall be made up of contingents which the
states and the Federal District are bound to furnish,
constituted in conformity with the annual law regulating the
number of the forces.
§ 1. The general organization of the army shall be determined
by a federal law, in accordance with No. 18 of article 34.
§ 2. The Union shall have charge of the military instruction
of the troops and of the higher military instruction.
§ 3. Compulsory recruiting for military purposes is abolished.
§ 4. The army and navy shall be made up by volunteering
without bounties, or, if this means be not sufficient, by lot
previously determined. The crews for the navy shall be made up
from the naval school, the schools of marine apprentices, and
the merchant marine, by means of lot.
Article 88.
In no case, either directly or indirectly, alone or in
alliance with another nation, shall the United States of
Brazil engage in a war of conquest.
Article 89.
A tribunal of accounts shall be instituted for the auditing of
the receipt and expense accounts and examining into their
legality before their presentation to the Congress. The
members of this tribunal shall be appointed by the President
of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, and can lose
their seats only by sentence.
Article 90.
The Constitution may be amended, at the initiative of the
national Congress, or of the legislatures of the States.
§ 1. An amendment shall be considered as proposed, when,
having been presented by one-fourth, at least, of the members
of either house of the Congress, it shall have been accepted
in three readings (discussions) by two-thirds of the votes in
both houses of the Congress, or when it shall have been asked
for by two-thirds of the States represented, each one by a
majority of the votes of its legislature, said votes to be
taken in the course of 1 year.
§ 2. The proposed amendment shall be considered approved, if,
in the following year, after three discussions, it shall have
been adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the votes in the
two houses of the Congress.
§ 3. The amendment adopted shall be published with the
signatures of the presidents and clerks of the two chambers,
and be incorporated into the Constitution as a part of the
same.
§ 4. No project having a tendency to abolish the federative
republican form, or the equal representation of the States in
the Senate, shall be admitted for consideration in the
Congress.
Article 91.
This Constitution, after approval, shall be promulgated by the
president of the Congress and signed by the members of the
same.
Temporary Provisions.
Article I.
After the promulgation of this Constitution, the Congress, in
joint assembly, shall choose consecutively, by an absolute
majority of votes in the first balloting, and, if no candidate
shall receive such, by a plurality in the second balloting,
the President and Vice President of the United States of
Brazil.
§ 1. This election shall be in two distinct ballotings, for
the President and Vice President respectively, the ballots for
President being taken and counted, in the first place, and
afterwards for Vice President.
§ 2. The President and Vice President, thus elected, shall
occupy the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the Republic
during the first Presidential term.
§ 3. For said election there shall be no incompatibilities
admitted.
§ 4. As soon as said election shall be concluded, the Congress
shall consider as terminated its mission in joint session and,
separating into Chamber and Senate, shall enter upon the
exercise of its functions as defined by law, on the 15th of
June of the present year, and can not in any case be
dissolved.
§ 5. In the first year of the first legislature, among its
preparatory measures, the Senate shall designate the first and
second third of its members, whose term of office shall cease
at the end of the first and second 3-year terms.
§ 6. The discrimination shall be made in three lists,
corresponding to the three classes, allotting to them the
senators of each State and of the Federal District according
to the number of votes received by them respectively, so as to
allot to the third for the last 3 years the one receiving the
highest number of votes in the Federal District and in each
State, and to the other two-thirds the remaining two names in
the order of the number of votes received by them
respectively.
§ 7. In case of tie, the oldest shall be preferred, and if the
ages are equal, the choice shall be made by lot.
{526}
Article 2.
The State which, by the end of the year 1892, shall not have
adopted its constitution, shall, by act of the federal
legislative power, be placed under that of one of the other
States, which it shall judge most suitable, until the State
thus subjected to said constitution, shall amend it in the
manner provided in the same.
Article 3.
As fast as the States shall be organized, the Federal
Government shall deliver to them the administration of the
services which belong to them, and shall settle the
responsibility of the federal administration in all that
relates to said services and to the payment of the respective
officials.
Article 4.
While, during the period of organization of their services,
the States shall be engaged in regulating their expenses, the
Federal Government shall, for this purpose, open special
credits to them, under conditions determined by the Congress.
Article 5.
In the States which shall become organized the classification
of the revenues established in the Constitution shall enter
into force.
Article 6.
In the first appointments for the federal magistracy and for
that of the States, the preference shall be given to the
justices and magistrates of the higher courts of the greatest
note. Such as are not admitted into the new organization of
the judiciary, and have served 30 years, shall be retired on
full pay. Those who have served for less than 30 years shall
continue to receive their salaries until they shall be
employed, or retired with pay corresponding to their length of
service. The payment of salaries of magistrates retired or set
aside shall be made by the Federal Government.
Article 7.
To D. Pedro de Alcantara, ex-Emperor of Brazil, a pension is
granted, to run from the 15th of November, 1889, sufficient to
guaranty him a decent subsistence during his lifetime. The
Congress, at its first session, shall fix the amount of said
pension.
Article 8.
The Federal Government shall acquire for the nation the house
in which Dr. Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhães died, and
shall have placed on it a memorial slab in memory of that
great patriot, the founder of the Republic. Sole
paragraph.--The widow of the said Dr. Benjamin Constant
shall have, during her lifetime, the usufruct of the said
house. We order, then, all the authorities to whom the
recognition and execution of this Constitution belongs, to
execute it and have it executed and observed faithfully and
fully in all its provisions. Let the same be published and
observed throughout the territory of the nation.
Hall of the sessions of the National Constitutional Congress,
in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in the year 1891, and the third
of the Republic.
See BRAZIL: 1889-1891.
----------CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA.
For an account of the main features of this singular
constitution,
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
----------CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1774.
The Quebec Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1791.
The Constitutional Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1791.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1840.
The Union Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1867.
The British North America Act.
The history of the Confederation of the provinces of British
North America, forming the Dominion of Canada, is given
briefly under CANADA: A. D. 1867. The following is the text of
the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain by which the
Confederation was formed and its constitution established:
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for purposes
connected therewith.
29TH MARCH, 1867.
WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united
into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in
principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a
Union would conduce to the welfare of the Provinces and
promote the interests of the British Empire; And whereas on
the establishment of the Union by authority of Parliament it
is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the
Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but
also that the nature of the Executive Government therein be
declared: And whereas it is expedient that provision be made
for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of
British North America: Be it therefore enacted and declared by
the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act,
1867.
2. The provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the
Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty,
Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland.
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of
Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by
Proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not
being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the
Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form
and be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after
that day those three Provinces shall form and be one Dominion
under that name accordingly.
4. The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is
otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on
and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the day
appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's
Proclamation; and in the same provisions, unless it is
otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken
to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
5. Canada shall be divided into four Provinces, named Ontario,
Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
{527}
6. The parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the
passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively
the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed
to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The part
which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall
constitute the Province of Ontario; and the part which
formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall
constitute the Province of Quebec.
7. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have
the same limits as at the passing of this Act.
8. In the general census of the population of Canada, which is
hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereafter,
the respective populations of the four Provinces shall be
distinguished.
9. The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada
is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
10. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
General extend and apply to the Governor General for the time
being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or
Administrator, for the time being carrying on the Government
of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen, by whatever
title he is designated.
11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the
Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that
Council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the
Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and
members thereof may be from time to time removed by the
Governor General.
12. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act
of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the
Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or
exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant
Governors of those Provinces, with the advice, or with the
advice and consent, of the respective Executive Councils
thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any
number of members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant
Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in
existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in
relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and
exerciseable by the Governor General, with the advice or with
the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's
Privy Council for Canada, or any members thereof, or by the
Governor General individually, as the case requires, subject
nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts
of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished
or altered by the Parliament of Canada.
13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor
General in Council shall be construed as referring to the
Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's
Privy Council for Canada.
14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks
fit, to authorize the Governor General from time to time to
appoint any person or any persons, jointly or severally, to be
his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and
in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the
Governor General such of the powers, authorities, and
functions of the Governor General as the Governor General
deems it necessary and expedient to assign to him or them,
subject to any limitations or directions expressed or given by
the Queen; but the appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies
shall not affect the exercise by the Governor General himself
of any power, authority or function.
15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of
all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby
declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
16. Until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat of Government
of Canada shall be Ottawa.
17. There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of
the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of
Commons.
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held,
enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of
Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be
such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament
of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at
the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the
Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof.
19. The Parliament of Canada shall be called together not
later than six months after the Union.
20. There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Canada once
at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not
intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one
Session and its first sitting in the next Session.
21. The Senate shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
consist of seventy-two members, who shall be styled Senators.
22. In relation to the constitution of the Senate, Canada
shall be deemed to consist of three divisions--1. Ontario; 2.
Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick; which three divisions shall (subject to the
provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate
as follows: Ontario by twenty-four Senators; Quebec by
twenty-four Senators; and the Maritime Provinces by
twenty-four Senators, twelve thereof representing Nova Scotia,
and twelve thereof representing New Brunswick. In the case of
Quebec each of the twenty-four Senators representing that
Province shall be appointed for one of the twenty-four
Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A.
to chapter one of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.
23. The qualification of a Senator shall be as follows:
(l) He shall be of the full age of thirty years:
(2) He shall be either a natural born subject of the Queen, or
a subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament
of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of one of
the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova
Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the
Parliament of Canada after the Union:
(3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of freehold for
his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and
common socage, or seised or possessed for his own use and
benefit of lands or tenements held in franc-alleu or in
roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the
value of four thousand dollars, over and above all rents,
dues, debts, charges, mortgages, and incumbrances due or
payable out of or charged on or affecting the same:
{528}
(4) His real and personal property shall be together worth
$4,000 over and above his debts and liabilities:
(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is
appointed:
(6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property
qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is
appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.
24. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the
Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,
summon qualified persons to the Senate; and, subject to the
provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become
and be a member of the Senate and a Senator.
25. Such persons shall be first summoned to the Senate as the
Queen by warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual thinks
fit to approve, and their names shall be inserted in the
Queen's Proclamation of Union.
26. If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor
General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six
members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by
summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may
be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add
to the Senate accordingly.
27. In case of such addition being at any time made the
Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate,
except on a further like direction by the Queen on the like
recommendation, until each of the three divisions of Canada is
represented by twenty-four Senators and no more.
28. The number of Senators shall not at any time exceed
seventy-eight.
29. A Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,
hold his place in the Senate for life.
30. A Senator may by writing under his hand addressed to the
Governor General resign his place in the Senate, and thereupon
the same shall be vacant.
31. The place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the
following cases:
(1) If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails
to give his attendance in the Senate:
(2) If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or
acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power, or does an act whereby he becomes a subject or
citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject
or citizen of a foreign power:
(3) If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or applies for
the benefit of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or
becomes a public defaulter:
(4) If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of
any infamous crime:
(5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of
residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to
have ceased to be qualified in respect of residence by reason
only of his residing at the seat of the Government of Canada
while holding an office under that Government requiring his
presence there.
32. When a vacancy happens in the Senate by resignation,
death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by summons to
a fit and qualified person fill the vacancy.
33. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a
Senator or a vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and
determined by the Senate.
34. The Governor General may from time to time, by instrument
under the Great Seal of Canada, appoint a Senator to be
Speaker of the Senate, and may remove him and appoint another
in his stead.
35. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the
presence of at least fifteen Senators, including the Speaker,
shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for
the exercise of its powers.
36. Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a
majority of voices, and the Speaker shall in all cases have a
vote, and when the voices are equal the decision shall be
deemed to be in the negative.
37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of
whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for
Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New
Brunswick.
38. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the
Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,
summon and call together the House of Commons.
39. A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of
sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons.
40. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides,
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall, for the
purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of
Commons, be divided into Electoral Districts as follows:--
(1) Ontario shall be divided into the Counties, Ridings of
Counties, Cities, parts of Cities, and Towns enumerated in the
first Schedule to this Act, each whereof shall be an Electoral
District, each such District as numbered in that Schedule
being entitled to return one member.
(2) Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five Electoral
Districts, composed of the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into
which Lower Canada is at the passing of this Act divided under
chapter two of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter
seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada,
and the Act of the Province of Canada of the twenty-third year
of the Queen, chapter one, or any other Act amending the same
in force at the Union, so that each such Electoral Division
shall be for the purposes of this Act an Electoral District
entitled to return one member.
(3) Each of the eighteen Counties of Nova Scotia shall be an
Electoral District. The County of Halifax shall be entitled to
return two members, and each of the other Counties one member.
(4) Each of the fourteen Counties into which New Brunswick is
divided, including the City and County of St. John, shall be
an Electoral District; the City of St. John shall also be a
separate Electoral District. Each of those fifteen Electoral
Districts shall be entitled to return one member.
{529}
41. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all
laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative
to the following matters or any of them, namely,--the
qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be elected
or to sit or vote as members of the House of Assembly or
Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the voters at
elections of such members, the oaths to be taken by voters,
the returning officers, their powers and duties, the
proceedings at elections, the periods during which elections
may be continued, the trial of controverted elections, and
proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of seats of
members, and the execution of new writs in case of seats
vacated otherwise than by dissolution,--shall respectively
apply to elections of members to serve in the House of Commons
for the same several Provinces. Provided that, until the
Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, at any election for a
Member of the House of Commons for the District of Algoma, in
addition to persons qualified by the law of the Province of
Canada to vote, every male British subject aged twenty-one
years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.
42. For the first election of members to serve in the House of
Commons the Governor General shall cause writs to be issued by
such person, in such form, and addressed to such returning
officers as he thinks fit. The person issuing writs under this
section shall have the like powers as are possessed at the
Union by the officers charged with the issuing of writs for
the election of members to serve in the respective House of
Assembly or Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada,
Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick; and the Returning Officers to
whom writs are directed under this section shall have the like
powers as are possessed at the Union by the officers charged
with the returning of writs for the election of members to
serve in the same respective House of Assembly or Legislative
Assembly.
43. In case a vacancy in the representation in the House of
Commons of any Electoral District happens before the meeting
of the Parliament, or after the meeting of the Parliament
before provision is made by the Parliament in this behalf, the
provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall
extend and apply to the issuing and returning of a writ in
respect of such vacant District.
44. The House of Commons on its first assembling after a
general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to
elect one of its members to be Speaker.
45. In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by
death, resignation or otherwise, the House of Commons shall
with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its
members to be Speaker.
46. The Speaker shall preside at all meetings of the House of
Commons.
47. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, in case
of the absence for any reason of the Speaker from the chair of
the House of Commons for a period of forty-eight consecutive
hours, the House may elect another of its members to act as
Speaker, and the member so elected shall during the
continuance of such absence of the Speaker have and execute
all the powers, privileges, and duties of Speaker.
48. The presence of at least twenty members of the House of
Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the
House for the exercise of its powers, and for that purpose the
Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.
49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided
by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and
when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker
shall have a vote.
50. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from
the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House
(subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and
no longer.
51. On the completion of the census in the year one thousand
eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent
decennial census, the representation of the four Provinces
shall be re-adjusted by such authority, in such manner and
from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time
provides, subject and according to the following rules:--
(1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:
(2) There shall be assigned to each of the other Provinces
such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to
the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as
the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of
Quebec (so ascertained):
(3) In the computation of the number of members for a Province
a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number
requisite for entitling the Province to a member shall be
disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that
number shall be equivalent to the whole number:
(4) On any such re-adjustment the number of members for a
Province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the
number of the population of the Province bore to the number of
the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding
re-adjustment of the number of members for the Province is
ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by
one-twentieth part or upwards: (5) Such re-adjustment shall
not take effect until the termination of the then existing
Parliament.
52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from
time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided
the proportionate representation of the Provinces prescribed
by this Act is not thereby disturbed.
53. Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or
for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House
of Commons.
54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt
or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the
appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax
or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended
to that House by message of the Governor General in the
Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is
proposed.
55. Where a bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is
presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent, he
shall declare according to his discretion, but subject to the
provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's instructions,
either that he assents thereto in the Queen's name, or that he
withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the bill for
the signification of the Queen's pleasure.
56. Where the Governor General assents to a bill in the
Queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity
send an authentic copy of the Act to one of Her Majesty's
Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council
within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of
State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such disallowance (with
a certificate of the Secretary of State of the day on which
the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor
General, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
Parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the Act from and
after the day of such signification.
{530}
57. A bill reserved for the signification of the Queen's
pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two
years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor
General for the Queen's assent, the Governor General
signifies, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
Parliament or by proclamation, that it has received the assent
of the Queen in Council. An entry of every such speech,
message, or proclamation shall be made in the Journal of each
House, and a duplicate thereof duly attested shall be
delivered to the proper officer to be kept among the Records
of Canada.
58. For each Province there shall be an officer, styled the
Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General in
Council by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada.
59. A Lieutenant Governor shall hold office during the
pleasure of the Governor General; but any Lieutenant Governor
appointed after the commencement of the first Session of the
Parliament of Canada shall not be removable within five years
from his appointment, except for cause assigned, which shall
be communicated to him in writing within one month after the
order for his removal is made, and shall be communicated by
message to the Senate and to the House of Commons within one
week thereafter if the Parliament is then sitting, and if not
then within one week after the commencement of the next
Session of the Parliament.
60. The salaries of the Lieutenant Governors shall be fixed
and provided by the Parliament of Canada.
61. Every Lieutenant Governor shall, before assuming the
duties of his office, make and subscribe before the Governor
General, or' some person authorized by him, oaths of
allegiance and office similar to those taken by the Governor
General.
62. The provisions of this Act referring to the Lieutenant
Governor extend and apply to the Lieutenant Governor for the
time being of each Province or other the chief executive
officer or administrator for the time being carrying on the
government of the Province, by whatever title he is
designated.
63. The Executive Council of Ontario and of Quebec shall be
composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from to
time thinks fit, and in the first instance of the following
officers, namely:--The Attorney-General, the Secretary and
Registrar of the Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the
Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Commissioner of
Agriculture and Public Works, with in Quebec the Speaker of
the Legislative Council and the Solicitor General.
64. The Constitution of the Executive Authority in each of the
Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to
the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union
until altered under the authority of this Act.
65. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act
of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the
Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, were or
are before or at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the
respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those
Provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of
the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction
with those Councils, or with any number of members thereof, or
by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually,
shall, as far as the same are capable of being exercised after
the Union in relation to the Government of Ontario and Quebec,
respectively, be vested in, and shall or may be exercised by
the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and Quebec respectively,
with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in
conjunction with the respective Executive Councils, or any
members thereof, or by the Lieutenant Governor individually,
as the case requires, subject nevertheless (except with
respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great
Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland), to be abolished or altered by the
respective Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec.
66. The provisions of this Act, referring to the Lieutenant
Governor in Council shall be construed as referring to the
Lieutenant Governor of the Province acting by and with the
advice of the Executive Council thereof.
67. The Governor General in Council may from time to time
appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions
of Lieutenant Governor during his absence, illness, or other
inability.
68. Unless and until the Executive Government of any Province
otherwise directs with respect to the Province, the seats of
Government of the Provinces shall be as follows, namely,--of
Ontario, the City of Toronto; of Quebec, the City of Quebec;
of Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax; and of New Brunswick, the
City of Fredericton.
69. There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the
Lieutenant Governor and of one House, styled the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario.
70. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario shall be composed of
eighty-two members, to be elected to represent the eighty-two
Electoral Districts set forth in the first Schedule to this
Act.
71. There shall be a Legislature for Quebec consisting of the
Lieutenant Governor and of two Houses, styled the Legislative
Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.
72. The Legislative Council of Quebec shall be composed of
twenty-four members, to be appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great
Seal of Quebec, one being appointed to represent each of the
twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada in this Act
referred to, and each holding office for the term of his life,
unless the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides under the
provisions of this Act.
73. The qualifications of the Legislative Councillors of
Quebec shall be the same as those of the Senators for Quebec.
74. The place of a Legislative Councillor of Quebec shall
become vacant in the cases, 'mutatis mutandis' in which the
place of Senator becomes vacant.
{531}
75. When a vacancy happens in the Legislative Council of
Quebec, by resignation, death, or otherwise, the Lieutenant
Governor, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great
Seal of Quebec, shall appoint a fit and qualified person to
fill the vacancy.
76. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a
Legislative Councillor of Quebec, or a vacancy in the
Legislative Council of Quebec, the same shall be heard and
determined by the Legislative Council.
77. The Lieutenant Governor may from time to time, by
instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, appoint a member of
the Legislative Council of Quebec to be Speaker thereof, and
may remove him and appoint another in his stead.
78. Until the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides, the
presence of at least ten members of the Legislative Council,
including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a
meeting for the exercise of its powers.
79. Questions arising in the Legislative Council of Quebec
shall be decided by a majority of voices, and the Speaker
shall in all cases have a vote, and when the voices are equal
the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.
80. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of
sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixty-five
Electoral Divisions or Districts of Lower Canada in this Act
referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature
of Quebec: Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to
the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec for assent any bill for
altering the limits of any of the Electoral Divisions or
Districts mentioned in the second Schedule to this Act, unless
the second and third readings of such bill have been passed in
the Legislative Assembly with the concurrence of the majority
of the members representing all those Electoral Divisions or
Districts, and the assent shall not be given to such bills
unless an address has been presented by the Legislative
Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor stating that it has been
so passed.
81. The Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively shall
be called together not later than six months after the Union.
82. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and of Quebec shall
from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under
the Great Seal of the Province, summon and call together the
Legislative Assembly of the Province.
83. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise
provides, a person accepting or holding in Ontario or in
Quebec any office, commission, or employment, permanent or
temporary, at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor, to
which an annual salary, or any fee, allowance, emolument, or
profit of any kind or amount whatever from the Province is
attached, shall not be eligible as a member of the Legislative
Assembly of the respective Province, nor shall he sit or vote as
such; but nothing in this section shall make ineligible any
person being a member of the Executive Council of the
respective Province, or holding any of the following offices,
that is to say, the offices of Attorney-General, Secretary and
Registrar of the Province, Treasurer of the Province,
Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Commissioner of Agriculture
and Public Works and, in Quebec, Solicitor-General, or shall
disqualify him to sit or vote in the House for which he is
elected, provided he is elected while holding such office.
84. Until the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively
otherwise provide, all laws which at the Union are in force in
those Provinces respectively, relative to the following
matters, or any of them, namely,--the qualifications and
disqualifications of persons to be elected or to sit or vote
as members of the Assembly of Canada, the qualifications or
disqualifications of voters, the oaths to be taken by voters,
the Returning Officers, their powers and duties, the
proceedings at elections, the periods during which such
elections may be continued, and the trial of controverted
elections and the proceedings incident thereto, the vacating
of the seats of members and the issuing and execution of new
writs in case of seats vacated otherwise than by dissolution,
shall respectively apply to elections of members to serve in
the respective Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec.
Provided that until the Legislature of Ontario otherwise
provides, at any election for a member of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario for the District of Algoma, in addition to
persons qualified by the law of the Province of Canada to
vote, every male British subject, aged twenty-one years or
upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.
85. Every Legislative Assembly of Ontario and every
Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall continue for four years
from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the same
(subject nevertheless to either the Legislative Assembly of
Ontario or the Legislative Assembly of Quebec being sooner
dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province), and no
longer.
86. There shall be a session of the Legislature of Ontario and
of that of Quebec once at least in every year, so that twelve
months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the
Legislature in each Province in one session and its first
sitting in the next session.
87. The following provisions of this Act respecting the House
of Commons of Canada, shall extend and apply to the
Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec, that is to
say,--the provisions relating to the election of a Speaker
originally and on vacancies, the duties of the Speaker, the
absence of the Speaker, the quorum, and the mode of voting, as
if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable
in terms to each such Legislative Assembly.
88. The constitution of the Legislature of each of the
Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to
the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union
until altered under the authority of this Act; and the House
of Assembly of New Brunswick existing at the passing of this
Act shall, unless sooner dissolved, continue for the period
for which it was elected.
89. Each of the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario, Quebec, and
Nova Scotia shall cause writs to be issued for the first
election of members of the Legislative Assembly thereof in
such form and by such person as he thinks fit, and at such
time and addressed to such Returning Officer as the Governor
General directs, and so that the first election of member of
Assembly for any Electoral District or any subdivision thereof
shall be held at the same time and at the same places as the
election for a member to serve in the House of Commons of
Canada for that Electoral District.
{532}
90. The following provisions of this Act respecting the
Parliament of Canada, namely,--the provisions relating to
appropriation and tax bills, the recommendation of money
votes, the assent to bills, the disallowance of Acts. and the
signification of pleasure on bills reserved,--shall extend and
apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those
provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms
to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with
the substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province
for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the
Queen and for a Secretary of State, of one year for two years,
and of the Province for Canada.
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws
for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in
relation to all matters not coming within the classes of
subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures
of the Provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to
restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this
section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything
in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the
classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to
say,--
1. The Public Debt and Property.
2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.
3. The raising of money by any mode or system of Taxation.
4. The borrowing of money on the public credit.
5. Postal service.
6. The Census and Statistics.
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances
of civil and other officers of the Government of Canada.
9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.
10. Navigation and Shipping.
11. Quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of Marine
Hospitals.
12. Sea coast and inland Fisheries.
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign
country, or between two Provinces.
14. Currency and Coinage.
15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper
money.
16. Savings Banks.
17. Weights and Measures.
18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
19. Interest.
20. Legal tender.
21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
22. Patents of invention and discovery.
23. Copyrights.
24. Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.
25. Naturalization and Aliens.
26. Marriage and Divorce.
27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of
Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal
Matters.
28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of
Penitentiaries.
29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the
enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned
exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any
matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated
in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class
of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the
enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned
exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws
in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects
next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--
1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything
in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as
regards the office of Lieutenant Governor.
2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising
of a Revenue for Provincial purposes.
3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the Province.
4. The establishment and tenure of Provincial offices and the
appointment and payment of Provincial officers.
5. The management and sale of the Public Lands belonging to
the Province and of the timber and wood thereon.
6. The establishment, maintenance, and management of public
and reformatory prisons in and for the Province.
7. The establishment, maintenance, and management of
hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions
in and for the Province, other than marine hospitals.
8. Municipal institutions in the Province.
9. Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses in
order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial, local, or
municipal purposes.
10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the
following classes,
a. Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals,
telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the
Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or
extending beyond the limits of the Province:
b. Lines of steamships between the Province and any
British or foreign country.
c. Such works as, although wholly situate within the
Province, are before or after their execution declared by the
Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada
or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces.
11. The incorporation of companies with Provincial objects.
12. The solemnization of marriage in the Province.
13. Property and civil rights in the Province.
14. The administration of justice in the Province, including
the constitution, maintenance, and organization of Provincial
Courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and
including procedure in Civil matters in those Courts.
15. The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or
imprisonment for enforcing any law of the Province made in
relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of
subjects enumerated in this section.
16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature
in the Province.
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively
make laws in relation to education, subject and according to
the following provisions:
(1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any
right or privilege with respect to denominational schools
which any class of persons have by law in the Province at the
Union.
(2) All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union by law
conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools
and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects
shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient
schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects
in Quebec.
(3) Where in any Province a system of separate or dissentient
schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter,
established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal
shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or
decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or
privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the
Queen's subjects in relation to education:
{533}
(4) In case any such Provincial law as from time to time seems
to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due
execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in
case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any
appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper
Provincial authority in that behalf, then find in every such
case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case
require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for
the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any
decision of the Governor General in Council under this
section.
94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of
Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of
the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario,
Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or
any of the Courts in those three Provinces; and from and after
the passing of any Act in that behalf the power of the
Parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter
comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in
this Act, be unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of
Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have
effect in any Province unless and until it is adopted and
enacted as law by the Legislature thereof.
95. In each Province the Legislature may make laws in relation
to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the
Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of
Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration
into all or any of the Provinces; and any law of the
Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to
Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long
and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the
Parliament of Canada.
96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the
Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except
those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick.
97. Until the laws relative to property and civil rights in
Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the procedure of
the Courts in those Provinces, are made uniform, the Judges of
the Courts of those Provinces appointed by the Governor
General shall be selected from the respective Bars of those
Provinces.
98. The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from
the Bar of that Province.
99. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold office during
good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General
on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
100. The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the Judges of
the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts
of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the
Admiralty Courts in cases where the Judges thereof are for the
time being paid by salary, shall be fixed and provided by the
Parliament of Canada.
101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in
this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution,
maintenance, and organization of a general Court of Appeal for
Canada, and for the establishment of any additional Courts for
the better administration of the Laws of Canada.
102. All duties and revenues over which the respective
Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick before
and at the Union had and have power of appropriation, except
such portions thereof as are by this Act reserved to the
respective Legislatures of the Provinces, or are raised by
them in accordance with the special powers conferred on them
by this Act, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be
appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner
and subject to the charges in this Act provided.
103. The Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada shall be
permanently charged with the costs, charges, and expenses
incident to the collection, management, and receipt thereof,
and the same shall form the first charge thereon, subject to
be reviewed and audited in such manner as shall be ordered by
the Governor General in Council until the Parliament otherwise
provides.
104. The annual interest of the public debts of the several
Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the
Union shall form the second charge on the Consolidated Revenue
Fund of Canada.
105. Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of
the Governor General shall be ten thousand pounds sterling
money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and
the same shall form the third charge thereon.
106. Subject to the several payments by this Act charged on
the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the same shall be
appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public
service.
107. All stocks, cash, banker's balances, and securities for
money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union,
except as in this Act mentioned, shall be the property of
Canada, and shall be taken in reduction of the amount of the
respective debts of the Provinces at the Union.
108. The public works and property of each Province,
enumerated in the third schedule to this Act, shall be the
property of Canada.
109. All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to
the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
at the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands,
mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several
Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in
which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts
existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than
that of the Province in the same.
110. All assets connected with such portions of the public
debt of each Province as are assumed by that Province shall
belong to that Province.
111. Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of
each Province existing at the Union.
112. Ontario and Quebec conjointly shall be liable to Canada
for the amount (if any) by which the debt of the Province of
Canada exceeds at the Union sixty-two million five hundred
thousand dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
rate of five per centum per annum thereon.
113. The assets enumerated in the fourth Schedule to this Act
belonging at the Union to the Province of Canada shall be the
property of Ontario and Quebec conjointly.
{534}
114. Nova Scotia shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if
any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union eight
million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
rate of five per centum per annum thereon.
115. New Brunswick shall be liable to Canada for the amount
(if any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union seven
million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the
rate of five per centum per annum thereon.
116. In case the public debt of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
do not at the Union amount to eight million dollars and seven
million dollars respectively, they shall respectively receive
by half-yearly payments in advance from the Government of
Canada interest at five per centum per annum on the difference
between the actual amounts of their respective debts and such
stipulated amounts.
117. The several provinces shall retain all their respective
public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject
to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property
required for fortifications or for the defence of the country.
118. The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the
several Provinces for the support of their Governments and
Legislatures: Ontario, eighty thousand dollars; Quebec,
seventy thousand dollars; Nova Scotia, sixty thousand dollars;
New Brunswick, fifty thousand dollars; [total] two hundred and
sixty thousand dollars; and an annual grant in aid of each
Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head, of the
population us ascertained by the census of one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the
population of each of those two Provinces amounts to four
hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall
thereafter remain. Such grant shall be in full Settlement of
all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in
advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall
deduct from such grants, as against any Province, all sums
chargeable as interest on the Public Debt of that Province in
excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.
119. New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in
advance from Canada, for the period of ten years from the
Union, an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars
per annum; but as long as the Public Debt of that Province
remains under seven million dollars a deduction equal to the
interest at five per centum per annum on such deficiency shall
be made from that allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars.
120. All payments to be made under this Act, or in discharge
of liabilities created under any Act of the Provinces of
Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, and
assumed by Canada, shall, until the Parliament of Canada
otherwise directs, be made in such form and manner as may from
time to time be ordered by the Governor General in Council.
121. All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of
anyone of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be
admitted free into each of the other Provinces.
122. The Customs and Excise Laws of each Province shall,
subject to the provisions of this Act, continue in force until
altered by the Parliament of Canada.
123. Where Customs duties are, at the Union, leviable on any
goods, wares or merchandises in any two Provinces, those
goods, wares and merchandises may, from and after the Union,
be imported from one of those Provinces into the other of them
on proof of payment of the Customs duty leviable thereon in
the Province of exportation, and on payment of such further
amount (if any) of Customs duty as is leviable thereon in the
Province of importation.
124. Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of New
Brunswick to levy the lumber dues provided in chapter fifteen,
of title three, of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, or
in any Act amending that act before or after the Union, and
not increasing the amount of such dues; but the lumber of any
of the Provinces other than New Brunswick stall not be
subjected to such dues.
125. No lands or property belonging to Canada or any Province
shall be liable to taxation.
126. Such portions of the duties and revenues over which the
respective Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick had before the Union power of appropriation as are
by this Act reserved to the respective Governments or
Legislatures of the Provinces, and all duties and revenues
raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred
upon them by this act, shall in each Province form one
Consolidated Revenue Fund to be appropriated for the public
service of the Province.
127. If any person being at the passing of this Act a member
of the Legislative Council of Canada, Nova Scotia, or New
Brunswick, to whom a place in the Senate is offered, does not
within thirty days thereafter, by writing under his hand,
addressed to the Governor General of the Province of Canada,
or to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick
(as the case may be), accept the same, he shall be deemed to
have declined the same; and any person who, being at the
passing of this Act a member of the Legislative Council of
Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, accepts a place in the Senate,
shall thereby vacate his seat in such Legislative Council.
128. Every member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada
shall before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe
before the Governor General or some person authorized by him,
and every member of a Legislative Council or Legislative
Assembly of any Province shall before taking his seat therein,
take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the
Province, or some person authorized by him, the oath of
allegiance contained in the fifth Schedule to this Act; and
every member of the Senate of Canada and every member of the
Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his
seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General,
or some person authorized by him, the declaration of
qualification contained in the same Schedule.
{535}
129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in
force in Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick at the Union,
and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all
legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers,
judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing therein at
the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and
New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made,
subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as are
enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great
Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished or altered by
the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the
respective Province, according to the authority of the
Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act.
130. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all
officers of the several Provinces having duties to discharge
in relation to matters other than those coming within the
classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the
Legislatures of the Provinces shall be officers of Canada, and
shall continue to discharge the duties of their respective
offices under the same liabilities, responsibilities and
penalties as if the Union had not been made.
131. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the
Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint such
officers as the Governor General in Council deems necessary or
proper for the effectual execution of this Act.
132. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all
powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of
Canada or of any Province thereof, as part of the British
Empire towards foreign countries, arising under treaties
between the Empire and such foreign countries.
133. Either the English or the French language may be used by
any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of
Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and
both those languages shall be used in the respective records
and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages
may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or
issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act,
and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. The Acts of
the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec
shall be printed and published in both those languages.
134. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise
provides, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Que bee may
each appoint under the Great Seal of the Province the
following officers, to hold office during pleasure, that is to
say,--the Attorney General, the Secretary and Registrar of the
Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the Commissioner of
Crown Lands and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public
Works, and, in the case of Quebec, the Solicitor General; and
may, by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from time
to time prescribe the duties of those officers and of the
several departments over which they shall preside or to which
they shall belong, and of the officers and clerks thereof; and
may also appoint other and additional officers to hold office
during pleasure, and may from time to time prescribe the
duties of those officers, and of the several departments over
which they shall preside or to which they shall belong, and of
the officers and clerks thereof.
130. Until the Legislature of Ontario or Quebec otherwise
provides, all rights, powers, duties, functions,
responsibilities or authorities at the passing of this Act
vested in or imposed on the Attorney General, Solicitor
General, Secretary and Registrar of the Province of Canada,
Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Commissioner
of Public Works, and Minister of Agriculture and Receiver
General, by any law, statute or ordinance of Upper Canada,
Lower Canada, or Canada, and not repugnant to this Act, shall
be vested in or imposed on any officer to be appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor for the discharge of the same or any of
them; and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works
shall perform the duties and functions of the office of
Minister of Agriculture at the passing of this Act imposed by
the law of the Province of Canada as well as those of the
Commissioner of Public Works.
136. Until altered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the
Great Seals of Ontario and Quebec respectively, shall be the
same or of the same design, as those used in the Provinces of
Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively before their Union
as the Province of Canada.
137. The words "and from thence to the end of the then next
ensuing Session of the Legislature," or words to the same
effect, used in any temporary Act of the Province of Canada
not expired before the Union, shall be construed to extend and
apply to the next Session of Parliament of Canada, if the
subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as
defined by this Act, or to the next Sessions of the
Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively, if the
subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as
defined by this Act.
138. From and after the Union, the use of the words "Upper
Canada," instead of "Ontario," or "Lower Canada" instead of
"Quebec," in any deed, writ, process, pleading, document,
matter or thing, shall not invalidate the same.
139. Any Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province of
Canada, issued before the Union to take effect at a time which
is subsequent to the Union, whether relating to that Province
or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and the several
matters and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of
like force and effect as if the Union had not been made.
140. Any proclamation which is authorized by any Act of the
Legislature of the Province of Canada to be issued under the
Great Seal of the Province of Canada, whether relating to that
Province or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and which is
not issued before the Union, may be issued by the Lieutenant
Governor of Ontario or of Quebec, as its subject matter
requires, under the Great Seal thereof; and from and after the
issue of such Proclamation the same and the several matters
and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of the
like force and effect in Ontario or Quebec as if the Union had
not been made.
141. The Penitentiary of the Province of Canada shall, until
the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, be and continue
the Penitentiary of Ontario and of Quebec.
142. The division and adjustment of the debts, credits,
liabilities, properties and assets of Upper Canada and Lower
Canada shall be referred to the arbitrament of three
arbitrators, one chosen by the Government of Ontario, one by
the Government of Quebec, and one by the Government of Canada;
and the selection of the Arbitrators shall not be made until
the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of Ontario and
Quebec have met; and the arbitrator chosen by the Government
of Canada shall not be a resident either in Ontario or in
Quebec.
{536}
143. The Governor General in Council may from time to time
order that such and so many of the records, books, and
documents of the Province of Canada as he thinks fit shall be
appropriated and delivered either to Ontario or to Quebec, and
the same shall henceforth be the property of that Province:
and any copy thereof or extract therefrom, duly certified by
the officer having charge of the original thereof shall be
admitted as evidence.
144. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec may from time to time,
by Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province, to take
effect from a day to be appointed therein, constitute
townships in those parts of the Province of Quebec in which
townships are not then already constituted, and fix the metes
and bounds thereof.
145. Inasmuch as the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction
of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation
of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed
that provision should be made for its immediate construction
by the Government of Canada: Therefore, in order to give
effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the
Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the
commencement, within six months after the Union, of a railway
connecting the River St. Lawrence with the City of Halifax in
Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without
intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable
speed.
146. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice
of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on Addresses
from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the
Houses of the respective Legislatures of the Colonies or
Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British
Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of
them, into the Union, and on Address from the Houses of the
Parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the
North-western Territory, or either of them, into the Union, on
such terms and conditions in each case as are in the Addresses
expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to
the provisions of this Act, and the provisions of any Order in
Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been
enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland.
147. In case of the admission of Newfoundland and Prince
Edward Island, or either of them, each shall be entitled to a
representation in the Senate of Canada of four members, and
(notwithstanding anything in this Act) in case of the
admission of Newfoundland the normal number of Senators shall
be seventy-six and their maximum number shall be eighty-two;
but Prince Edward Island when admitted shall be deemed to be
comprised in the third of the three divisions into which
Canada is, in relation to the constitution of the Senate,
divided by this Act, and accordingly, after the admission of
Prince Edward Island, whether Newfoundland is admitted or not,
the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the
Senate shall, as vacancies occur, be reduced from twelve to
ten members respectively; and the representation of each of
those Provinces shall not be increased at any time beyond ten,
except under the provisions of this Act for the appointment of
three or six additional Senators under the direction of the
Queen.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1871.
British North America Act, 1871.
An Act respecting the Establishment of Provinces in the
Dominion of Canada. [29TH JUNE, 1871.]
WHEREAS doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of
the Parliament of Canada to establish Provinces in territories
admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted, into the
Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of
such Provinces in the said Parliament, and it is expedient to
remove such doubts, and to vest such powers in the said
Parliament: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords,
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as The British North
America Act, 1871.
2. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish
new Provinces in any territories forming for the time being
part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any
Province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,
make provision for the constitution and administration of any
such Province, and for the passing of laws for the peace,
order and good government of such Province, and for its
representation in the said Parliament.
3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the
consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said
Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of
such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed
to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent,
make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such
increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation
to any Province affected thereby.
4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make
provision for the administration, peace, order, and good
government of any territory not for the time being included in
any Province.
5. The following Acts passed by the said Parliament of Canada,
and intituled respectively: "An Act for the temporary
government of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory
when united with Canada;" and "An Act to amend and continue
the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three,
and to establish and provide for the government of the
Province of Manitoba," shall be and be deemed to have been
valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date
at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's
name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada.
6. Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it
shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to alter
the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said
Parliament in so far as it relates to the Province of
Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new
Provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of
the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to alter from time
to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification
of electors and members of the Legislative Assembly, and to
make laws respecting elections in the said Province.
{537}
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1875.
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875.
An Act to remove certain doubts with respect to the powers of
the Parliament of Canada, under Section 18 of the British
North America Act, 1867. [19TH JULY, 1875.]
WHEREAS by section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867,
it is provided as follows:-
"The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed,
and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and
by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from
time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but
so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of
this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and by the members thereof." And whereas doubts have arisen
with regard to the power of defining by an Act of the
Parliament of Canada, in pursuance of the said section, the
said privileges, powers or immunities; and it is expedient to
remove such doubts: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as
follows:-
1. Section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867, is
hereby repealed, without prejudice to anything done under that
section, and the following section shall be substituted for
the section so repealed:--The privileges, immunities, and
powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by
the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively,
shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the
Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of
Canada defining such privileges, immunities and powers shall
not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding
those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised
by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
2. The Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in the
thirty-first year of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter
twenty-four, intituled An Act to provide for oaths to
witnesses being administered in certain cases for the purposes
of either House of Parliament, shall be deemed to be valid,
and to have been valid as from the date at which the royal
assent was given thereto by the Governor General of the
Dominion of Canada.
3. This Act may be cited as The Parliament of Canada Act,
1875.
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D, 1886.
British North America Act, 1886.
An Act respecting the Representation in the Parliament of
Canada of Territories which for the time being form part of
the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province.
[25TH JUNE, 1886.]
WHEREAS it is expedient to empower the Parliament of Canada to
provide for the representation in the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which
for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but
is not included in any Province: Be it therefore enacted by
the Queen's. Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of
the same, as follows:--
1. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make
provision for the representation in the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories
which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada,
but are not included in any Province thereof.
2. Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the
passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act
shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed
to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it
received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the
Governor-General of Canada. It is hereby declared that any Act
passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after
the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this
Act, or in The British North America Act, 1871, has effect,
notwithstanding anything in The British North America Act,
1867, and the number of Senators or the number of Members of
the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is
increased by the number of Senators or of Members, as the case
may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada
for the representation of any provinces or territories of
Canada.
3. This Act maybe cited as The British North America Act,
1886. This Act and The British North America Act, 1867, and
The British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed
together, and may be cited together as The British North
America Acts, 1861 to 1886.
----------CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF (OR FOR) THE CAROLINAS (Locke's).
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
CONSTITUTION OF CHILE.
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884, and 1885-1891.
CONSTITUTION OF CLEISTHENES.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
CONSTITUTION OF COLOMBIA.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886, and 1885-1891.
CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT
(1639--the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven).
See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1636-1639, and 1639.
CONSTITUTION OF DENMARK.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
CONSTITUTION OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC, or the United Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
{538}
CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND.
"Our English Constitution was never made, in the sense in
which the Constitutions of many other countries have been
made. There never was any moment when Englishmen drew out
their political system in the shape of a formal document,
whether as the carrying out of any abstract political theories
or as the imitation of the past or present system of any other
nation. There are indeed certain great political documents,
each of which forms a landmark in our political history. There
is the Great Charter [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215], the Petition
of Rights [ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628, and 1628], the Bill of
Rights [ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (October)]. But not one of these
gave itself out as the enactment of anything new. All claimed
to set forth, with new strength, it might be, and with new
clearness, those rights of Englishmen which were already old.
... The life and soul of English law has ever been precedent;
we have always held that whatever our fathers once did their
sons have a right to do again."
E. A. Freeman, The Growth of the English
Constitution, chapter 2.
"It is, in the first place, necessary to have a clear
understanding of what we mean when we talk about 'the English
Constitution.' Few terms in our language have been more laxly
employed. ... Still, the term, 'the English Constitution' is
susceptible of full and accurate explanation: though it may
not be easy to set it lucidly forth, without first
investigating the archaeology of our history, rather more
deeply than may suit hasty talkers and superficial thinkers.
... Some furious Jacobins, at the close of the last century,
used to clamour that there was no such thing as the English
Constitution, because it could not be produced in full written
form, like that of the United States. ... But an impartial and
earnest investigator may still satisfy himself that England
has a constitution, and that there is ample cause why she
should cherish it. And by this it is meant that he will
recognise and admire, in the history, the laws and the
institutions of England, certain great leading principles,
which have existed from the earliest period of our nationality
down to the present time; expanding and adapting themselves to
the progress of society and civilization, advancing and
varying in development, but still essentially the same in
substance and spirit. These great primeval and enduring
principles are the principles of the English Constitution. And
we are not obliged to learn them from imperfect evidences or
precarious speculation; for they are imperishably recorded in
the Great Charter, and in Charters and Statutes connected with
and confirmatory of Magna Charta [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215].
... These great primeval and enduring principles of our
Constitution are as follows: The government of the country by
an hereditary sovereign, ruling with limited powers, and bound
to summon and consult a parliament of the whole realm,
comprising hereditary peers and elective representatives of
the commons. That without the sanction of parliament no tax of
any kind can be imposed; and no law can be made, repealed, or
altered. That no man be arbitrarily fined or imprisoned, that
no man's property or liberties be impaired, and that no man be
in any way punished, except after a lawful trial. Trial by jury.
That justice shall not be sold or delayed. These great
constitutional principles can all be proved, either by express
terms or by fair implication, from Magna Carta, and its ...
supplement [the statute 'Confirmatio Cartarum ']. Their
vigorous development was aided and attested in many subsequent
statutes, especially in the Petition of Rights and the Bill of
Rights. ... Lord Chatham called these three 'The Bible of the
English Constitution,' to which appeal is to be made on every
grave political question."
E. S. Creasy, Rise and Progress of the English
Constitution, chapter 1.
"The fact that our constitution has to be collected from
statutes, from legal decisions, from observation of the course
of conduct of the business of politics; that much of what is
written is of a negative sort, stating what the Crown and its
ministers cannot do; that there is no part of it which an
omnipotent Parliament may not change at will; all this is a
puzzle not only to foreign jurists who are prepared to say,
with De Tocqueville, that the English constitution does not
exist, but to ourselves who are prepared to maintain that it
is a monument, if only we can find it, of political sagacity.
Those who praise it call it flexible; those who criticise it
unstable."
Sir W. R. Anson, The Law and Custom of the
Constitution, part 1, page 35.
ALSO IN:
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England
in its Origin and Development.
H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England:
Henry VII. to George II.
T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860.
R. Gneist, History of the English Constitution.
E. Fischel, The English Constitution.
W. Bagehot, The English Constitution.
E. Boutmy, The English Constitution.
See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,
and CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
----------CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1791.
The Constitution accepted by Louis XVI.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791,
and 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (or the Year One).
The Jacobin Constitution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (or the Year Three).
The Constitution of the Directory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1799.
The Constitution of the Consulate.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1814.
The Constitution of the Restoration.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1848.
The Constitution of the Second Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1852.-
The Constitution of the Second Empire.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
The Constitution of the Third Republic.
The circumstances of the framing and adoption in 1875 of the
Constitution of the Third Republic will be found narrated
under FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
The following is the text of the organic law of 1875, with the
later amendatory and supplemental enactments, down to July 17,
1889, as translated and edited, with an historical
introduction, by Mr. Charles F. A. Currier, and published in
the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, March, 1893. It is reproduced here with the kind
permission of the President of the Academy, Professor Edmund
J. James:
{539}
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Organization of the Public Powers. February 25.
ARTICLE 1.
The legislative power is exercised by two assemblies: the
Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies is
elected by universal suffrage, under the conditions determined
by the electoral law.
[Footnote: See law of November 30, 1875, infra.]
The composition, the method of election, and the powers of the
Senate shall be regulated by a special law.
[Footnote: See laws of February 24, and August 2, 1875, infra.]
ARTICLE 2.
The President of the Republic is chosen by an absolute
majority of votes of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies united
in National Assembly. He is elected for seven years. He is
re-eligible.
ARTICLE 3.
The President of the Republic has the initiative of the laws,
concurrently with the members of the two Chambers. He
promulgates the laws when they have been voted by the two
Chambers; he looks after and secures their execution. He has
the right of pardon; amnesty can be granted by law only. He
disposes of the armed force. He appoints to all civil and
military positions. He presides over national festivals;
envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to
him. Every act of the President of the Republic must be
countersigned by a Minister.
ARTICLE 4.
As vacancies occur on and after the promulgation of the
present law, the President of the Republic appoints, in the
Council of Ministers, the Councilors of State in ordinary
service. The Councilors of State thus chosen may be dismissed
only by decree rendered in the Council of Ministers. The
Councilors of State chosen by virtue of the law of May 24,
1872, cannot, before the expiration of their powers, be
dismissed except in the manner determined by that law. After
the dissolution of the National Assembly, revocation may be
pronounced only by resolution of the Senate.
ARTICLE 5.
The President of the Republic may, with the advice of the
Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the legal
expiration of its term. [In that case the electoral colleges
are summoned for new elections within the space of three
months.]
[Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of
August 14, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 6.
The Ministers are jointly and severally ('solidairement')
responsible to the Chambers for the general policy of the
government, and individually for their personal acts. The
President of the Republic is responsible in case of high
treason only.
[Footnote: See ARTICLE 12, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]
ARTICLE 7.
In case of vacancy by death or for any other reason, the two
Chambers assembled together proceed at once to the election of
a new President. In the meantime the Council of Ministers is
invested with the executive power.
[Footnote: See ARTICLES. 3 and 11, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]
ARTICLE 8.
The Chambers shall have the right by separate resolutions,
taken in each by an absolute majority of votes, either upon
their own initiative or upon the request of the President of
the Republic, to declare a revision of the Constitutional Laws
necessary. After each of the two Chambers shall have come to
this decision, they shall meet together in National Assembly
to proceed with the revision. The acts effecting revision of
the constitutional laws, in whole or in part, must be by an
absolute majority of the members composing the National
Assembly. [During the continuance, however, of the powers
conferred by the law of November 20, 1873, upon Marshal de
MacMahon, this revision can take place only upon the
initiative of the President of the Republic.]
[Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of
August 14, 1884, infra.]
[ARTICLE 9.
The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
Versailles.]
[Footnote: Repealed by constitutional law
of June 21, 1879, infra.]
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Organization of the Senate. February 24.
[Footnote: By the constitutional law of
August 14, 1884, it was provided that Articles 1 to 7
of this law should no longer have a constitutional
character; and they were repealed
by the law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
[ARTICLE 1.
The Senate consists of three hundred members: Two hundred and
twenty-five elected by the departments and colonies, and
seventy-five elected by the National Assembly.]
[ARTICLE 2.
The departments of the Seine and Nord elect each five
senators. The following departments elect four senators each:
Seine-Inférieure, Pas-dc-Calais, Gironde, Rhône, Finistère,
Côtes-du-Nord. The following departments elect three senators
each: Loire-Inférieure, Saône-et-Loire, Ille-et-Vilaine,
Seine-et-Oise, Isère, Puy-de-Dôme, Somme, Bouches-du-Rhône,
Aisne, Loire, Manche, Maine-et-Loire, Morbihan, Dordogne,
Haute-Garonne, Charente-Inférieure, Calvados, Sarthe, Hérault,
Basses-Pyrénées, Gard, Aveyron, Vendée, Orne, Oise, Vosges,
Allier. All the other departments elect two senators each. The
following elect one senator each: The Territory of Belfort,
the three departments of Algeria, the four colonies:
Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion and the French Indies.]
[ARTICLE 3.
No one can be senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
years of age at least, and enjoying civil and political
rights.]
[ARTICLE 4.
The senators of the departments and colonies are elected by an
absolute majority and by 'scrutin de liste', by a college
meeting at the capital of the department or colony and
composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the general councilors;
(3) of the arrondissement councilors; (4) of delegates
elected, one by each municipal council, from among the voters
of the commune. In the French Indies the members of the
colonial council or of the local councils are substituted for
the general councilors, arrondissement councilors and
delegates from the municipal councils. They vote at the
capital of each district.]
[ARTICLE 5.
The senators chosen by the Assembly are elected by 'scrutin de
liste' and by an absolute majority of votes.]
[ARTICLE 6.
The senators of the departments and colonies are elected for
nine years and renewable by thirds every three years. At the
beginning of the first session the departments shall be
divided into three series containing an equal number of
senators each. It shall be determined by lot which series
shall be renewed at the expiration of the first and second
triennial periods.]
[ARTICLE 7.
The senators elected by the Assembly are irremovable.
Vacancies by death, by resignation, or for any other reason,
shall, within the space of two months, be filled by the Senate
itself.]
{540}
ARTICLE 8.
The Senate has, concurrently with the Chamber of Deputies, the
initiative and passing of laws. Money bills, however, must
first be introduced in, and passed by the Chamber of Deputies.
ARTICLE 9.
The Senate may be constituted a Court of Justice to judge
either the President of the Republic or the Ministers, and to
take cognizance of attacks made upon the safety of the State.
ARTICLE 10.
Elections to the Senate shall take place one month before the
time fixed by the National Assembly for its own dissolution.
The Senate shall organize and enter upon its duties the same
day that the National Assembly is dissolved.
ARTICLE 11.
The present law shall be promulgated only after the
passage of the law on the public powers.
[Footnote: i. e., the law of February 25, 1875, supra.]
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE; 1875.
Law on the Relations of the Public Powers. July 16.
ARTICLE 1.
The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies shall assemble each
year the second Tuesday of January, unless convened earlier by
the President of the Republic. The two Chambers continue in
session at least five months each year. The sessions of each
begin and end at the same time. [On the Sunday following the
opening of the session, public prayers shall be addressed to
God in the churches and temples, to invoke His aid in the
labors of the Chambers.]
[Footnote: Repealed by law of August 14, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 2.
The President of the Republic pronounces the closure of the
session. He may convene the Chambers in extra session. He must
convene them if, during the recess, an absolute majority of
the members of each Chamber request it. The President may
adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however, must not
exceed one month, nor take place more than twice in the same
session.
ARTICLE 3.
One month at least before the legal expiration of the powers
of the President of the Republic, the Chambers must be called
together in National Assembly and proceed to the election of a
new President. In default of a summons, this meeting shall
take place, as of right, the fifteenth day before the
expiration of those powers. In case of the death or
resignation of the President of the Republic, the two Chambers
shall reassemble immediately, as of right. In case the Chamber
of Deputies, in consequence of Article 5 of the law of
February 25, 1875, is dissolved at the time when the
presidency of the Republic becomes vacant, the electoral
colleges shall be convened at once, and the Senate shall
reassemble as of right.
ARTICLE 4.
Every meeting of either of the two Chambers which shall be
held at a time other than the common session of both is
illegal and void, except the case provided for in the
preceding article, and that when the Senate meets as a court
of justice; and in this last case, judicial duties alone shall
be performed.
ARTICLE 5.
The sittings of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies are
public. Nevertheless each Chamber may meet in secret session,
upon the request of a fixed number of its members, determined
by the rules. It decides by absolute majority whether the
sitting shall be resumed in public upon the same subject.
ARTICLE 6.
The President of the Republic communicates with the Chambers
by messages, which are read from the tribune by a Minister.
The Ministers have entrance to both Chambers, and must be
heard when they request it. They may be represented, for the
discussion of a specific bill, by commissioners designated by
decree of the President of the Republic.
ARTICLE 7.
The President of the Republic promulgates the laws within the
month following the transmission to the Government of the law
finally passed. He must promulgate, within three days, laws
whose promulgation shall have been declared urgent by an
express vote in each Chamber. Within the time fixed for
promulgation the President of the Republic may, by a message
with reasons assigned, request of the two Chambers a new
discussion, which cannot be refused.
ARTICLE 8.
The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies
treaties. He communicates them to the Chambers as soon as the
interests and safety of the State permit. Treaties of peace,
and of commerce, treaties which involve the finances of the
State, those relating to the persons and property of French
citizens in foreign countries, shall become definitive only
after having been voted by the two Chambers. No cession, no
exchange, no annexation of territory shall take place except
by virtue of a law.
ARTICLE 9.
The President of the Republic cannot declare war except by the
previous assent of the two Chambers.
ARTICLE 10.
Each Chamber is the judge of the eligibility of its members,
and of the legality of their election; it alone can receive
their resignation.
ARTICLE 11.
The bureau of each Chamber is elected each year for the entire
session, and for every extra session which may be held before
the ordinary session of the following year. When the two
Chambers meet together as a National Assembly, their bureau
consists of the President, Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of
the Senate.
[Footnote: The bureau of the Senate consists of a president,
four vice-presidents, six secretaries and three questors; the
bureau of the Chamber of Deputies is the same, except that
there are eight secretaries instead of six.]
ARTICLE 12.
The President of the Republic may be impeached by the Chamber
of Deputies only, and tried by the Senate only. The Ministers
may be impeached by the Chamber of Deputies for offences
committed in the performance of their duties. In this case
they are tried by the Senate. The Senate may be constituted a
court of Justice, by a decree of the President of the
Republic, issued in the Council of Ministers, to try all
persons accused of attempts upon the safety of the State. If
procedure is begun by the ordinary courts, the decree
convening the Senate may be issued any time before the
granting of a discharge. A law shall determine the method of
procedure for the accusation, trial and judgment.
[Footnote: Fixed by law of April 10, 1880.]
ARTICLE 13.
No member of either Chamber shall be prosecuted or held
responsible on account of any opinions expressed or votes cast
by him in the performance of his duties.
{541}
ARTICLE 14.
No member of either Chamber shall, during the session, be
prosecuted or arrested for any offence or misdemeanor, except
on the authority of the Chamber of which he is a member,
unless he be caught in the very act. The detention or
prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended for the
session, and for its [the Chamber's] entire term, if it
demands it.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
Law Revising Article 9 of the Constitutional Law of
February 25,1875, June 21.
Article 9 of the constitutional law of February 25, 1875, is
repealed.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
Law Partially Revising the Constitutional Laws, August 14.
ARTICLE 1.
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the constitutional law of February
25, 1875, on the Organization of the Public Powers, is amended
as follows: "In that case the electoral colleges meet for new
elections within two months, and the Chamber within the ten
days following the close of the elections."
ARTICLE 2.
To Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the same law of February 25,
1875, is added the following: "The Republican form of the
Government cannot be made the subject of a proposed revision.
Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
to the presidency of the Republic."
ARTICLE 3.
Articles 1 to 7 of the constitutional law of February 24,
1875, on the Organization of the Senate, shall no longer have
a constitutional character.
[Footnote: And may therefore be amended by ordinary
legislation. See the law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 4.
Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the constitutional law of July 16,
1875, on the Relation of the Public Powers, is repealed.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Election of Senators. August 2.
ARTICLE 1.
A decree of the President of the Republic, issued at least six
weeks in advance, determines the day for the elections to the
Senate, and at the same time that for the choice of delegates
of the municipal councils. There must be an interval of at
least one month between the choice of delegates and the
election of senators.
ARTICLE 2.
Each municipal council elects one delegate. The election is
without debate, by secret ballot, and by an absolute majority
of votes. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and in
case of an equality of votes, the oldest is declared elected.
If the Mayor is not a member of the municipal council, he
presides, but shall not vote.
[Footnote: Amended by Article 8, law of December 9, 1884,
infra.]
On the same day and in the same way an alternate is elected,
who takes the place of the delegate in case of refusal or
inability to serve.
[Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, supra.]
The choice of the municipal councils shall not extend to a
deputy, a general councilor, or an arrondissement councilor.
[Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, supra. ]
All communal electors, including the municipal councilors, are
eligible without distinction.
ARTICLE 3.
In the communes where a municipal committee exists, the
delegate and alternate shall be chosen by the old council.
[Footnote: Amended by Article 8,
law of December 9, 1884, infra. ]
ARTICLE 4.
If the delegate was not present at the election, the Mayor
shall see to it that he is notified within twenty-four hours.
He must transmit to the Prefect, within five days, notice of
his acceptance. In case of refusal or silence, he is replaced
by the alternate, who is then placed upon the list as the
delegate of the commune.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 5.
The official report of the election of the delegate and
alternate is transmitted at once to the Prefect; it states the
acceptance or refusal of the delegates and alternates, as well
as the protests raised, by one or more members of the
municipal council, against the legality of the election. A
copy of this official report is posted on the door of the town
hall.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 6.
A statement of the results of the election of delegates and
alternates is drawn up within a week by the Prefect; this is
given to all requesting it, and may be copied and published.
Every elector may, at the bureaux of the prefecture, obtain
information and a copy of the list, by communes, of the
municipal councilors of the department, and, at the bureaux of
the sub-prefectures a copy of the list, by communes, of the
municipal councilors of the arrondissement.
ARTICLE 7.
Every communal elector may, within three days, address
directly to the Prefect a protest against the legality of the
election. If the Prefect deems the proceedings illegal, he may
request that they be set aside.
ARTICLE 8.
Protests concerning the election of the delegate or alternate
are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
the council of the prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
privy council. A delegate whose election is annulled because
he does not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or on
account of informality, is replaced by the alternate. In case
the election of the delegate and alternate is rendered void,
as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
elections are held by the municipal council on a day fixed by
an order of the Prefect.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 9.
Eight days, at the latest, before the election of senators,
the Prefect, and, in the colonies, the Director of the
Interior, arranges the list of the electors of the department
in alphabetical order. The list is communicated to all
demanding it, and may be copied and published. No elector has
more than one vote.
ARTICLE 10.
The deputies, the members of the general council, or of the
arrondissement councils, who have been announced by the
returning committees, but whose powers have not been verified,
are enrolled upon the list of electors and are allowed to
vote.
ARTICLE 11.
In each of the three departments of Algeria the electoral
college is composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the members
of the general councils, of French citizenship; (3) of
delegates elected by the French members of each municipal
council from among the communal electors of French
citizenship.
ARTICLE 12.
The electoral college is presided over by the President of the
civil tribunal of the capital of the department or colony. The
President is assisted by the two oldest and two youngest
electors present at the opening of the meeting. The bureau
thus constituted chooses a secretary from among the electors.
If the President is prevented [from presiding] his place is
taken by the Vice-President [of the civil tribunal], and, in
his absence, by the oldest justice.
{542}
ARTICLE 13.
The bureau divides the electors in alphabetical order into
sections of at least one hundred voters each. It appoints the
President and Inspectors of each of these sections. It decides
all questions and contests which may arise in the course of
the election, without, however, power to depart from the
decisions rendered by virtue of Article 8 of the present law.
ARTICLE 14.
The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
four o'clock. The third, if it takes place, begins at six
o'clock and closes at eight o'clock. The results of the
ballotings are determined by the bureau and announced the same
day by the President of the electoral college.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 15.
No one is elected senator on either of the first two ballots
unless he receives: (1) an absolute majority of the votes
cast; and (2) a number of votes equal to one-fourth of the
total number of electors registered. On the third ballot a
plurality is sufficient, and, in case of an equality of votes,
the oldest is elected.
ARTICLE 16.
Political meetings for the nomination of senators may take
place conformably to the rules laid down by the law of June 6,
1868 subject to the following conditions:
[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial
districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are
similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de
Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,
Algeria and the colonies.]
I. These meetings may be held from the date of the election of
delegates up to the day of the election [of senators]
inclusive;
II. They must be preceded by a declaration made, at latest,
the evening before, by seven senatorial electors of the
arrondissement, and indicating the place, the day and the hour
the meeting is to take place, and the names, occupation and
residence of the candidates to be presented;
III. The municipal authorities will see to it that no one is
admitted to the meeting unless he is a deputy, general
councilor, arrondissement councilor, delegate or candidate.
The delegate will present, as a means of identification, a
certificate from the Mayor of his commune, the candidate a
certificate from the official who shall have received the
declaration mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]
ARTICLE 17.
Delegates who take part in all the ballotings shall, if they
demand it, receive from the State, upon the presentation of
their letter of summons, countersigned by the President of the
electoral college, a remuneration for traveling expenses,
which shall be paid to them upon the same basis and in the
same manner as that given to jurors by Articles 35, 90 and
following, of the decree of June 18, 1811. A public
administrative regulation shall determine the method of fixing
the amount and the method of payment of this remuneration.
[Footnote: Done by decree of December 26, 1875.]
ARTICLE 18.
Every delegate who, without lawful reason, shall not take part
in all the ballotings, or, having been hindered, shall not
have given notice to the alternate in sufficient season,
shall, upon the demand of the public prosecutor, be punished
by a fine of fifty francs by the civil tribunal of the
capital.
[Footnote: Of the department.] The same penalty may be
imposed upon the alternate who, after having been notified by
letter, telegram, or notice personally delivered in due
season, shall not have taken part in the election.
ARTICLE 19.
Every attempt at corruption by the employment of means
enumerated in Articles 177 and following, of the Penal Code,
to influence the vote of an elector, or to keep him from
voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
to two years, and a fine of from fifty to five hundred francs,
or by one of these two penalties alone. Article 463 of the
Penal Code shall apply to the penalties imposed by the present
article.
[Footnote: See Article 8, Jaw of December 9, 1884,
infra. ]
ARTICLE 20.
It is incompatible for a senator to be:
I. Councilor of State, Maitre de Requêtes, Prefect or
Sub-Prefect, except Prefect of the Seine and Prefect of
Police;
II. Member of the courts of appeal ("appel, ") or of the
tribunals of first instance, except public prosecutor at the
court of Paris;
[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial
districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are
similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de
Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,
Algeria and the colonies.]
III. General Paymaster, Special Receiver, official or employé
of the central administration of the ministries.
ARTICLE 21.
The following shall not be elected by the department or the
colony included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction,
during the exercise of their duties and during the six months
following the cessation of their duties by resignation,
dismissal, change of residence, or other cause:
I. The First Presidents, Presidents, and members of the courts
of appeal ("appel");
II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Examining Magistrates,
and members of the tribunals of first instance;
III. The Prefect of Police; Prefects and Sub-Prefects, and
Prefectorial General Secretaries; the Governors, Directors of
the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;
V. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief Arrondissement
Road-Surveyors;
V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;
VI. The Primary School Inspectors;
VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;
VIII. The officers of all grades of the land and naval force;
IX. The Division Commissaries and the Military Deputy
Commissaries;
X. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;
XI. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
Registration of Lands and of Posts;
XII. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests.
ARTICLE 22.
A senator elected in several departments, must let his choice
be known to the President of the senate within ten days
following the verification of the elections. If a choice is
not made in this time, the question is settled by lot in open
session. The vacancy shall be filled within one month and by
the same electoral body. The same holds true in case of an
invalidated election.
ARTICLE 23.
If by death or resignation the number of senators of a
department is reduced by one·half, the vacancies shall be
filled within the space of three months, unless the vacancies
occur within the twelve months preceding the triennial
elections. At the time fixed for the triennial elections, all
vacancies shall be filled which have occurred, whatever their
number and date.
[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra. ]
[ARTICLE 24.
The election of senators chosen by the National Assembly takes
place in public sitting, by "scrutin de liste," and by an
absolute majority of votes, whatever the number of ballotings.]
{543}
[ARTICLE 25.
When it is necessary to elect successors of senators chosen by
virtue of Article 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, the
Senate proceeds in the manner indicated in the preceding
article].
[Footnote: Articles 24 and 25 repealed by law of December 9,
1584, infra.]
ARTICLE 26.
Members of the Senate receive the same salary as members of
the Chamber of Deputies.
[Footnote: See Article 17, law of November 30, 1875, infra. ]
ARTICLE 27.
There are applicable to elections to the Senate all the
provisions of the electoral law relating:
I. to cases of unworthiness and incapacity;
II. to offences, prosecutions, and penalties;
III. to election proceedings, in all respects not contrary to
the provisions of the present law.
Temporary Provisions.
ARTICLE 28.
For the first election of members of the Senate, the law which
shall determine the date of the dissolution of the National
Assembly shall fix, without regard to the intervals
established by Article 1, the date on which the municipal
councils shall meet for the election of delegates and the day
for the election of Senators. Before the meeting of the
municipal councils, the National Assembly shall proceed to the
election of those Senators whom it is to choose.
ARTICLE 20.
The provisions of Article 21, by which an interval of six
months must elapse between the cessation of duties and
election, shall not apply to officials, except Prefects and
Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased either before the
promulgation of the present law or within twenty days
following.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.
Law on the Election of Deputies. November 30.
[Footnote: See infra, the laws of June 10,1885, and
February 13, 1889, amending the electoral law. ]
ARTICLE 1.
The deputies shall be chosen by the voters registered:
I. upon the lists drawn up in accordance with the law of July 7, 1874;
II. upon the supplementary list including those who have lived
in the commune six months. Registration upon the supplementary
list shall take place conformably to the laws and regulations
now governing the political electoral lists, by the committees
and according to the forms established by Articles 1, 2 and 3
of the law of July 7, 1874. Appeals relating to the formation
and revision of either list shall be carried directly before
the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal ("Cassation"). The
electoral lists drawn up March 31, 1875, shall serve until
March 31, 1876.
ARTICLE 2.
The soldiers of all ranks and grades, of both the land and
naval forces, shall not vote when they are with their
regiment, at their post or on duty. Those who, on election
day, are in private residence, in non-activity or in
possession of a regular leave of absence, may vote in the
commune on the lists of which they are duly registered. This
last provision applies equally to officers on the unattached
list or on the reserve list.
ARTICLE 3.
During the electoral period, circulars and platforms
("professions de foi") signed by the candidates, placards and
manifestoes signed by one or more voters, may, after being
deposited with the public prosecutor, be posted and
distributed without previous authorization. The distribution
of ballots is not subjected to this deposit.
[Footnote: See, however, a law of December 20, 1878, by which
deposit is made necessary.]
Every public or municipal official is forbidden to distribute
ballots, platforms and circulars of candidates. The provisions
of Article 19 of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the
elections of Senators, shall apply to the elections of
deputies.
ARTICLE 4.
Balloting shall continue one day only. The voting occurs at
the chief place of the commune; each commune may nevertheless
be divided, by order of the Prefect, into as many sections as
may be demanded by local circumstances and the number of
voters. The second ballot shall take place the second Sunday
following the announcement of the first ballot, according to
the provisions of Article 65, of the law of March 15, 1849.
ARTICLE 5.
The method of voting shall be according to the provisions of
the organic and regulating decrees of February 2, 1852. The
ballot is secret. The voting lists used at the elections in
each section, signed by the President and Secretary, shall
remain deposited for eight days at the Secretary's office at
the town hall, where they shall be communicated to every voter
requesting them.
ARTICLE 6.
Every voter is eligible, without any tax qualification, at the
age of twenty-five years.
ARTICLE 7.
No soldier or sailor forming part of the active forces of land
or sea may, whatever his rank or position, be elected a member
of the Chamber of Deputies. This provision applies to soldiers
and sailors on the unattached list or in non-activity, but
does not extend to officers of the second section of the list
of the general staff, nor to those who, kept in the first
section for having been commander-in-chief in the field, have
ceased to be employed actively, nor to officers who, having
privileges acquired on the retired list, are sent to or
maintained at their homes while awaiting the settlement of
their pension. The decision by which the officer shall have
been permitted to establish his rights on the retired list
shall become, in this case, irrevocable. The rule laid down in
the first paragraph of the present Article shall not apply to
the reserve of the active army nor to the territorial army.
ARTICLE 8.
The exercise of public duties paid out of the treasury of the
State is incompatible with the office of deputy. Consequently
every official elected deputy shall be superseded in his
duties if, within the eight days following the verification of
powers, he has not signified that he does not accept the
office of deputy. There are excepted from the preceding
provisions the duties of Minister, Under Secretary of State,
Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Prefect of the Seine,
Prefect of Police, First President of the Court of Appeal
("cassation,") First President of the Court of Accounts, First
President of the Court of Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Attorney
General at the Court of Appeal ("cassation,") Attorney General
at the Court of Accounts, Attorney General at the Court of
Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Archbishop and Bishop, Consistorial
Presiding Pastor in consistorial districts whose capital has
two or more pastors, Chief Rabbi of the Central consistory,
Chief Rabbi of the Consistory of Paris.
ARTICLE 9.
There are also excepted from the provisions of Article 8:
I. titular professors of chairs which are filled by
competition or upon the nomination of the bodies where the
vacancy occurs;
II. persons who have been charged with a temporary mission.
All missions continuing more than six months cease to be
temporary and are governed by Article 8 above.
{544}
ARTICLE 10.
The official preserves the rights which he has acquired to a
retiring pension, and may, after the expiration of his term of
office, be restored to active service. The civil official who,
having had twenty years of service at the date of the
acceptance of the office of deputy, and shall be fifty years
of age at the time of the expiration of this term of office,
may establish his rights to an exceptional retiring pension.
This pension shall be regulated according to the third
Paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853. If the
official is restored to active service after the expiration of
his term of office, the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 2,
and Article 28 of the law of June 9, 1853, shall apply to him.
In duties where the rank is distinct from the employment, the
official, by the acceptance of the office of deputy, loses the
employment and preserves the rank only.
ARTICLE 11.
Every deputy appointed or promoted to a salaried public
position ceases to belong to the Chamber by the very fact of
his acceptance; but he may be re-elected, if the office which
he occupies is compactible with the office of deputy. Deputies
who become Ministers or Under-Secretaries of State are not
subjected to a re-election.
ARTICLE 12.
There shall not be elected by the arrondissement or the colony
included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction, during the
exercise of their duties or for six months following the
expiration of their duties due to resignation, dismissal,
change of residence, or any other cause:
I. The First-Presidents, Presidents, and members of the Courts
of Appeal ("appel");
II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Titular Judges, Examining
Magistrates, and members of the tribunals of first instance;
III. The Prefect of Police; the Prefects and General
Secretaries of the Prefectures; the Governors, Directors of
the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;
IV. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief
Arrondissement Road-Surveyors;
V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;
VI. The Primary School Inspectors;
VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;
VIII. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;
IX. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of
Registration of Lands, and of Posts;
X. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests. The Sub-Prefects
shall not be elected in any of the arrondissements of the
department where they perform their duties.
ARTICLE 13.
Every imperative mandate is null and void.
ARTICLE 14.
Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
districts. Each administrative arrondissement shall elect one
deputy. Arrondissements having more than 100,000 inhabitants
shall elect one deputy in addition for every additional
100,000 inhabitants or fraction of 100,000. Arrondissements of
this kind shall be divided into districts whose boundaries
shall be established by law and may be changed only by law.
ARTICLE 15.
Deputies shall be chosen for four years. The Chamber is
renewable integrally.
ARTICLE 16.
In ease of vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise, a new
election shall be held within three months of the date when
the vacancy occurred. In case of option, the vacancy shall be
filled within one month.
[Footnote: i. e., when a deputy had been elected from two or
more districts.]
ARTICLE 17.
The deputies shall receive a salary. This salary is regulated
by Articles 96 and 97 of the law of March 15, 1849, and by the
provisions of the law of February 16, 1872.
ARTICLE 18.
No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
equal to one-fourth of the number of voters registered. On the
second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an equality
of votes, the oldest is declared elected.
ARTICLE 19.
Each department of Algeria elects one deputy.
ARTICLE 20.
The voters living in Algeria in a place not yet made a
commune, shall be registered on the electoral list of the
nearest commune. When it is necessary to establish electoral
districts, either for the purpose of grouping mixed communes
in each of which the number of voters shall be insufficient,
or to bring together voters living in places not formed into
communes the decrees for fixing the seat of these districts
shall be issued by the Governor-General, upon the report of
the Prefect or of the General commanding the division.
ARTICLE 21.
The four colonies to which senators have been assigned by the
law of February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate,
shall choose one deputy each.
ARTICLE 22.
Every violation of the prohibitive provisions of Article 3,
Paragraph 3, of the present law shall be punished by a fine of
from sixteen francs to three hundred francs. Nevertheless the
criminal courts may apply Article 463 of the Penal Code. The
provisions of Article 6 of the law of July 7, 1874, shall
apply to the political electoral lists. The decree of January
29, 1871, and the laws of April 10, 1871, May 2, 1871, and
February 18, 1873, are repealed. Paragraph 11 of Article 15 of
the organic decree of February 2, 1852, is also repealed, in
so far as it refers to the law of May 21, 1836, on lotteries,
reserving, however, to the courts the right to apply to
convicted persons Article 42 of the Penal Code. The provisions
of the laws and decrees now in force, with which the present
law does not conflict, shall continue to be applied.
ARTICLE 23.
The provision of Article 12 of the present law by which an
interval of six months must elapse between the expiration of
duties and election, shall not apply to officials, except
Prefects and Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased
either before the promulgation of the present law or within
the twenty days following it.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.
Law Relating to the Seat of the Executive Power and of the
Chambers at Paris. July 22.
ARTICLE 1.
The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at
Paris.
ARTICLE 2.
The Palace of the Luxemburg and the Palais-Bourbon are
assigned, the first to the use of the Senate, the second to
that of the Chamber of Deputies. Nevertheless each of the
Chambers is authorized to choose, in the city of Paris, the
palace which it wishes to occupy.
{545}
ARTICLE 3.
The various parts of the palace of Versailles now occupied by
the Senate and Chamber of Deputies preserve their
arrangements. Whenever, according to Articles 7 and 8 of the
law of February 25, 1875, on the organization of the public
powers, a meeting of the National Assembly takes place, it
shall sit at Versailles, in the present hall of the Chamber of
Deputies. Whenever, according to Article 9 of the law of
February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate, and
Article 12 of the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, on the
relations of the public powers, the Senate shall be called
upon to constitute itself a Court of Justice, it shall
indicate the town and place where it proposes to sit.
ARTICLE 4.
The Senate and Chamber of Deputies will sit at Paris on and
after November 3 next.
ARTICLE 5.
The Presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies are
charged with the duty of securing the external and internal
safety of the Chambers over which they preside. To this end
they have the right to call upon the armed force and every
authority whose assistance they judge necessary. The demands
may be addressed directly to all officers, commanders, or
officials, who are bound to obey immediately, under the
penalties established by the laws. The Presidents of the
Senate and Chamber of Deputies may delegate to the questors or
to one of them their right of demanding aid.
ARTICLE 6.
Petitions to either of the Chambers can be made and presented
in writing only. It is forbidden to present them in person or
at the bar.
ARTICLE 7.
Every violation of the preceding article, every provocation,
by speeches uttered publicly, or by writings, or printed
matter, posted or distributed, to a crowd upon the public
ways, having for an object the discussion, drawing up, or
carrying to the Chambers or either of them, of petitions,
declarations, or addresses--whether or not any results follow
such action--shall be punished by the penalties enumerated in
Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the law of June 7, 1848.
ARTICLE 8.
The preceding provisions do not diminish the force of the law
of June 7, 1848, on riotous assemblies.
ARTICLE 9.
Article 463 of the Penal Code applies to the offences
mentioned in the present law.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.
Law Amending the Organic Laws on the Organization of the
Senate and the Elections of Senators. December 9.
ARTICLE 1.
The Senate consists of three hundred members, elected by the
departments and the colonies. The present members, without any
distinction between senators elected by the National Assembly
or the Senate and those elected by the departments and
colonies, maintain their term of office during the time for
which they have been chosen.
ARTICLE 2.
The department of the Seine elects ten senators. The
department of the Nord elects eight senators. The following
departments elect five senators each: Côtes-du-Nord,
Finistère, Gironde. Ille-et-Vilaine, Loire, Loire-Inférieure,
Pas-de-Calais, Rhône, Saône-et-Loire, Seine-Inférieure. The
following departments elect four senators each: Aisne,
Bouches-du-Rhône, Charente-Inférieure, Dordogne,
Haute-Garonne, Isère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Morbihan,
Puy-de-Dome, Seine-et-Oise, Somme. The following departments
elect three senators each: Ain, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes,
Aube, Aude, Aveyron, Calvados, Charente, Cher, Corrèze, Corse,
Côte·d'Or, Creuse, Doubs, Drôme, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Gard,
Gers, Hérault, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Landes,
Loir-et-Cher, Haute-Loire, Loiret, Lot, Lot-et-Garonne, Marne,
Haute-Marne, Mayenne, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Nièvre, Oise,
Orne, Basses-Pyréneées, Haute-Saône, Sarthe, Savoie,
Haute-Savoie, Seine-et-Marne, Deux-Sèvres, Tarn, Var, Vendée,
Vienne, Haute-Vienne, Vosges, Yonne. The following departments
elect two senators each: Basses-Alpes, Hautes-Alpes,
Alpes-Maritimes, Ariège, Cantal, Lozère, Hautes-Pyrénées,
Pyrénées-Orientales, Tarn-et-Garonne, Vancluse. The following
elect one senator each: the Territory of Belfort, the three
departments of Algeria, the four colonies: Martinique,
Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Indies.
ARTICLE 3.
In the departments where the number of senators is increased
by the present law, the increase shall take effect as
vacancies occur among the life senators. To this end, within
eight days after the vacancy occurs, it shall be determined by
lot what department shall be called upon to elect a senator.
This election shall take place within three months of the
determination by lot. Furthermore, if the vacancy occurs
within six months preceding the triennial election, the
vacancy shall be filled at that election. The term of office
in this case shall expire at the same time as that of the
other senators belonging to the same department.
ARTICLE 4.
No one shall be a senator unless he is a French citizen, forty
years of age, at least, and enjoying civil and political
rights. Members of families that have reigned in France are
ineligible to the Senate.
ARTICLE 5.
The soldiers of the land and naval forces cannot be elected
senators. There are excepted from this provision:
I. The Marshals and Admirals of France;
II. The general officers maintained without limit of age in
the first section of the list of the general staff and not
provided with a command;
III. The general officers placed in the second section of the
list of the general staff;
IV. Soldiers of the land and naval forces who belong either to
the reserve of the active army or to the territorial army.
ARTICLE 6.
Senators are elected by "scrutin de liste," by a college
meeting at the capital of the department or colony, and
composed:
(1) of the Deputies;
(2) of the General Councilors;
(3) of the Arrondissement Councilors;
(4) of delegates elected from among the voters of the commune,
by each Municipal Council.
Councils composed of ten members shall elect one delegate.
Councils composed of twelve members shall elect two delegates.
Councils composed of sixteen members shall elect three
delegates. Councils composed of twenty-one members shall elect
six delegates. Councils composed of twenty-three members shall
elect nine delegates. Councils composed of twenty-seven
members shall elect twelve delegates. Councils composed of
thirty members shall elect fifteen delegates. Councils
composed of thirty-two members shall elect eighteen delegates.
Councils composed of thirty-four members shall elect
twenty-one delegates. Councils composed of thirty-six members
or more shall elect twenty-four delegates. The Municipal
Council of Paris shall elect thirty delegates. In the French
Indies the members of the local councils take the place of
Arrondissement Councilors. The Municipal Council of Pondichéry
shall elect five delegates. The Municipal Council of Karikal
shall elect three delegates. All the other communes shall
elect two delegates each. The balloting takes place at the
capital of each district.
{546}
ARTICLE 7.
Members of the Senate are elected for nine years. The Senate
is renewed every three years according to the order of the
present series of departments and colonies.
ARTICLE 8.
Articles 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, 19 and 23
of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the Elections of
Senators are amended as follows:
"Article 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). In each Municipal Council the
election of delegates takes place without debate and by secret
ballot, by "scrutin de liste" and by an absolute majority of
votes cast. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and
in case of an equality of votes the oldest is elected. The
procedure and method is the same for the election of
alternates. Councils having one, two, or three delegates to
choose shall elect one alternate. Those choosing six or nine
delegates elect two alternates. Those choosing twelve or
fifteen delegates elect three alternates. Those choosing
eighteen or twenty-one delegates elect four alternates. Those
choosing twenty-four delegates elect five alternates. The
Municipal Council of Paris elects eight alternates; The
alternates take the place of delegates in case of refusal or
inability to serve, in the order determined by the number of
votes received by each of them.
Article 3.
In communes where the duties of a Municipal Council are
performed by a special delegation organized by virtue of
Article 44 of' the law of April 5, 1884, the senatorial
delegates and alternates shall be chosen by the old council.
Article 4.
If the delegates were not present at the election, notice is
given them by the Mayor within twenty-four hours. They must
within five days notify the Prefect of their acceptance. In
case of declination or silence they shall be replaced by the
alternates, who are then placed upon the list as the delegates
of the commune.
Article 5.
The official report of the election of delegates and
alternates is transmitted at once to the Prefect. It indicates
the acceptance or declination of the delegates and alternates,
as well as the protests made by one or more members of the
Municipal Council against the legality of the election. A copy
of this official report is posted on the door of the town
hall.
Article 8.
Protests concerning the election of delegates or alternates
are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by
the Council of the Prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the
Privy Council. Delegates whose election is set aside because
they do not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or because
of informality, are replaced by the alternates. In case the
election of a delegate and of an alternate is rendered void,
as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new
elections are held by the Municipal Council on a day fixed by
decree of the Prefect.
Article 14.
The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and
closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at
four o'clock. The third begins at seven o'clock and closes at
ten o'clock. The results of the ballotings are determined by
the bureau and announced immediately by the President of the
electoral college.
Article 16.
Political meetings for the nomination of senators may be held
from the date of the promulgation of the decree summoning the
electors up to the day of the election inclusive. The
declaration prescribed by Article 2 of the law of June 30,
1881, shall be made by two voters, at least. The forms and
regulations of this Article, as well as those of Article 3,
shall be observed. The members of Parliament elected or
electors in the department, the senatorial electors, delegates
and alternates, and the candidates, or their representatives,
may alone be present at these meetings. The municipal
authorities will see to it that no other person is admitted.
Delegates and alternates shall present as a means of
identification a certificate from the Mayor of the commune;
candidates or their representatives a certificate from the
official who shall have received the declaration mentioned in
Paragraph 2.
Article 19.
Every attempt at corruption or constraint by the employment of
means enumerated in Articles 177 and following of the Penal
Code, to influence the vote of an elector or to keep him from
voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months
to two years, and by a fine of from fifty francs to five
hundred francs, or by one of these penalties alone. Article
463 of the Penal Code is applicable to the penalties provided
for by the present article.
Article 23.
Vacancies caused by the death or resignation of senators shall
be filled within three months; moreover, if the vacancy occurs
within the six months preceding the triennial elections, it
shall be filled at those elections."
ARTICLE 9.
There are repealed:
(1) Articles 1 to 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, on the
organization of the Senate;
(2) Articles 24 and 25 of the law of August 2, 1875, on the
elections of senators.
Temporary Provision.
In case a special law on parliamentary incompatibilities shall
not have been passed at the date of the next senatorial
elections, Article 8, of the law of November 30, 1875, shall
apply to those elections. Every official affected by this
provision, who has had twenty years of service and is fifty
years of age at the date of his acceptance of the office [of
senator], may establish his right to a proportional retiring
pension, which shall be governed by the third paragraph of
Article 12, of the law of June 9, 1853.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1885.
Law Amending the Electoral Law. June 16.
[Footnote: Articles 1, 2 and 3 repealed
by the law of February 13 1889, infra.]
[ARTICLE 1.
The members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by "scrutin
de liste."]
[ARTICLE 2.
Each department elects the number
of deputies assigned to it in the table
(Footnote: This table may be found in the Bulletin des Lois,
twelfth series, No. 15,518; and in the Journal Officiel for
June 17, 1885, page 3074.)
annexed to the present law, on the basis of one deputy for
seventy thousand inhabitants, foreign residents not included.
Account shall be taken, nevertheless, of every fraction
smaller than seventy thousand.
(Footnote: i. e., fractions of less than 70,000 are entitled
to a deputy.)
Each department elects at least three deputies. Two deputies
are assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to Algeria, and
ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the table. This table
can be changed by law only.]
[ARTICLE 3.
The department forms a single electoral district.]
ARTICLE 4.
Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible
to the Chamber of Deputies.
{547}
ARTICLE 5.
No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)
an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes
equal to one-fourth of the total number of voters registered.
On the second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an
equality of votes, the oldest of the candidates is declared
elected.
ARTICLE 6.
Subject to the case of a dissolution foreseen and regulated by
the Constitution, the general elections take place within
sixty days preceding the expiration of the powers of the
Chamber of Deputies.
ARTICLE 7.
Vacancies shall not be filled which occur in the six months
preceding the renewal of the Chamber.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1887.
Law on Parliamentary Incompatibilities. December 26.
Until the passage of a special law on parliamentary
incompatibilities, Articles 8 and 9 of the law of November
30, 1875, shall apply to senatorial elections. Every official
affected by this provision who has had twenty years of service
and is fifty years of age at the time of his acceptance of the
office [of senator]. may establish his rights to a
proportional retiring pension, which shall be governed by the
third paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
Law Re-establishing Single Districts for the Election of
Deputies. February 13.
ARTICLE 1.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the law of June 16, 1885, are repealed.
ARTICLE 2.
Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single
districts. Each administrative arrondissement in the
departments, and each municipal arrondissement at Paris and at
Lyons, elects one deputy. Arrondissements whose population
exceeds one hundred thousand inhabitants elect an additional
deputy for every one hundred thousand or fraction of one
hundred thousand inhabitants. The arrondissements are in this
case divided into districts, a table of which is annexed to
the present law and can be changed by a law only.
[Footnote: This table may be found in the Journal
Officiel for February 14, 1889. pages 76 and following; and
in the Bulletin des Lois, twelfth series, No. 20,475.]
ARTICLE 3.
One deputy is assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to
Algeria, and ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the
table.
ARTICLE 4.
On and after the promulgation of the present law, until the
renewal of the Chamber of Deputies, vacancies occurring in the
Chamber of Deputies shall not be filled.
CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.
Law on Multiple Candidatures. July 17.
ARTICLE 1.
No one may be a candidate in more than one district.
ARTICLE 2.
Every citizen who offers himself or is offered at the general
or partial elections must, by a declaration signed or
countersigned by himself, and duly legalized, make known in
what district he means to be a candidate. This declaration is
deposited, and a provisional receipt obtained therefor, at the
Prefecture of the department concerned, the fifth day, at
latest, before the day of election. A definitive receipt shall
be delivered within twenty-four hours.
ARTICLE 3.
Every declaration made in violation of Article 1 of the
present law is void and not to be received. If declarations
are deposited by the same citizen in more than one district,
the earliest in date is alone valid. If they bear the same
date, all are void.
ARTICLE 4.
It is forbidden to sign or post placards, to carry or
distribute ballots, circulars, or platforms in the interest of
a candidate who has not conformed to the requirements of the
present law.
ARTICLE 5.
Ballots bearing the name of a citizen whose candidacy is put
forward in violation of the present law shall not be included
in the return of votes. Posters, placards, platforms, and
ballots posted or distributed to support a candidacy in a
district where such candidacy is contrary to the law, shall be
removed or seized.
ARTICLE 6.
A fine of ten thousand francs shall be imposed on the
candidate violating the provisions of the present law, and one
of five thousand francs on all persons acting in violation of
Article 4 of the present law.
----------CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: 13th-17th Centuries.
The Old (Holy Roman) Empire.
The Golden Bull.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152; 1347-1493;
and DIET, THE GERMANIC.
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1815.-
The Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1871.
The New Empire.
On the 18th day of January, 1871, at Versailles, King William
of Prussia assumed the title of German Emperor. On the 16th of
April following the Emperor issued a proclamation, by and with
the consent of the Council of the German Confederation, and of
the Imperial Diet, decreeing the adoption of a constitution
for the Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY) and (APRIL).
The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution,
as transmitted by the American Minister at Berlin to his
Government:
His Majesty the King of Prussia, in the name of the North
German Union, His Majesty the King of Bavaria, His Majesty the
King of Würtemberg, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of
Baden, and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, and by
Rhine for those parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse which are
situated south of the Main, conclude an eternal alliance for
the protection of the territory of the confederation, and of
the laws of the same, as well as for the promotion of the
welfare of the German people. This confederation shall bear
the name of the German Empire, and shall have the following
constitution.
I. Territory.
Article I.
The territory of the confederation shall consist of the States
of Prussia, with Lauenburg, Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg,
Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar,
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen,
Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Anhalt,
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershnusen, Waldeck,
Reuss of the elder branch, Reuss of the younger branch,
Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe, Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg.
{548}
II. Legislation of the Empire.
Article 2.
Within this territory the Empire shall have the right of
legislation according to the provisions of this constitution,
and the laws of the Empire shall take precedence of those of
each individual state. The laws of the Empire shall be
rendered binding by imperial proclamation, such proclamation
to be published in a journal devoted to the publication of the
laws of the Empire, (Reichsgesetzblatt.) If no other period
shall be designated in the published law for it to take
effect, it shall take effect on the fourteenth day after the
day of its publication in the law-journal at Berlin.
Article 3.
There is one citizenship for all Germany, and the citizens or
subjects of each state of the federation shall be treated in
every other state thereof as natives, and shall have the right
of becoming permanent residents, of carrying on business, of
filling public offices, and may acquire all civil rights on
the same conditions as those born in the state, and shall also
have the same usage as regards civil prosecutions and the
protection of the laws. No German shall be limited, in the
exercise of this privilege, by the authorities of his native
state, or by the authorities of any other state of the
confederation. The regulations governing the care of paupers,
and their admission into the various parishes, are not
affected by the principle enunciated in the first paragraph.
In like manner those treaties shall remain in force which have
been concluded between the various states of the federation in
relation to the custody of persons who are to be banished, the
care of sick, and the burial of deceased citizens. With regard
to the rendering of military service to the various states,
the necessary laws will be passed hereafter. All Germans in
foreign countries shall have equal claims upon the protection
of the Empire.
Article 4.
The following matters shall be under the supervision of the
Empire and its legislature:
1. The privilege of carrying on trade in more than one place;
domestic affairs and matters relating to the settlement of
natives of one state in the territory of another; the right of
citizenship; the issuing and examination of passports;
surveillance of foreigners and of manufactures, together with
insurance business, so far as these matters are not already
provided for by article 3 of this constitution, (in Bavaria,
however, exclusive of domestic affairs and matters relating to
the settlement of natives of one state in the territory of
another;) and likewise matters relating to colonization and
emigration to foreign countries.
2. Legislation concerning customs duties and commerce, and
such imposts as are to be applied to the uses of the Empire.
3. Regulation of weights and measures of the coinage, together
with the emission of funded and unfunded paper money.
4. Banking regulations in general.
5. Patents for inventions.
6. The protection of literary property.
7. The organization of a general system of protection for
German trade in foreign countries; of German navigation, and
of the German flag on the high seas; likewise the organization
of a general consular representation of the Empire.
8. Railway matters, (subject in Bavaria to the provisions of
article 46,) and the construction of means of communication by
land and water for the purposes of home defense and of general
commerce.
9. Rafting and navigation upon those waters which are common
to several States, and the condition of such waters, as
likewise river and other water dues.
10. Postal and telegraphic affairs; but in Bavaria and Hungary
these shall be subject to the provisions of article 52.
11. Regulations concerning the execution of judicial sentences
in civil matters, and the fulfillment of requisitions in
general.
12. The authentication of public documents.
13. General legislation regarding the law of obligations,
criminal law, commercial law, and the law of exchange;
likewise judicial proceedings.
14. The imperial army and navy.
15. The surveillance of the medical and veterinary
professions.
16. The press, trades' unions, &c.
Article 5.
The legislative power of the Empire shall be exercised by the
federal council and the diet. A majority of the votes of both
houses shall be necessary and sufficient for the passage of a
law. When a law is proposed in relation to the army or navy,
or to the imposts specified in article 35, the vote of the
presiding officer shall decide; in case of a difference of
opinion in the federal council, if said vote shall be in favor
of the retention of the existing arrangements.
III. Federal Council.
Article 6.
The federal council shall consist of the representatives of
the states of the confederation, among whom the votes shall be
divided in such a manner that Prussia, including the former
votes of Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau,
and Frankfort shall have 17 votes; Bavaria, 6 votes; Saxony, 4
votes; Würtemberg, 4 votes; Baden, 3 votes; Hesse, 3 votes;
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 2 votes; Saxe-Weimar, 1 vote;
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1 vote; Oldenburg, 1 vote; Brunswick, 2
votes; Saxe-Meiningen, 1 vote; Saxe-Altenburg, 1 vote;
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1 vote; Anhalt, 1 vote;
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Sondershansen, 1
vote; Waldeck, 1 vote; Reuss, elder branch, 1 vote; Reuss,
younger branch, 1 vote; Schaumburgh-Lippe, 1 vote; Lippe, 1
vote; Lubeck, 1 vote; Bremen, 1 vote; Hamburgh, 1 vote; total
58 votes. Each member of the confederation shall appoint as
many delegates to the federal council as it has votes; the
total of the votes of each state shall, however, be cast by
only one delegate.
Article 7.
The federal council shall take action upon--
1. The measures to be proposed to the diet and the resolutions
passed by the same.
2. The general provisions and regulations necessary for the
execution of the laws of the Empire, so far as no other
provision is made by said laws.
3. The defects which may be discovered in the execution of the
laws of the Empire, or of the provisions and regulations
heretofore mentioned. Each member of the confederation shall
have the right to introduce motions, and it shall be the duty
of the presiding officer to submit them for deliberation.
Legislative action shall take place by simple majority, with
the exceptions of the provisions in articles 5, 37, and 78.
Votes not represented or instructed shall not be counted. In
the case of a tie, the vote of the presiding officer shall
decide. When legislative action upon a subject which does not
affect, according to the provisions of this constitution, the
whole Empire is taken, the votes of only those states of the
confederation shall be counted which shall be interested in
the matter in question.
{549}
Article 8.
The federal council shall appoint from its own members
permanent committees--
1. On the army and the fortifications.
2. On naval affairs.
3. On duties and taxes.
4. On commerce and trade.
5. On railroads, post offices, and telegraphs.
6. On the judiciary.
7. On accounts.
In each of these committees there shall be representatives of
at least four states of the confederation, beside the
presiding officer, and each state shall be entitled to only
one vote in the same. In the committee on the army and
fortifications Bavaria shall have a permanent seat; the
remaining members of it, as well as the members of the
committee on naval affairs, shall be appointed by the Emperor;
the members of the other committees shall be elected by the
federal council. These committees shall be newly formed at
each session of the federal council, i. e., each year, when
the retiring members shall again be eligible. Besides, there
shall be appointed in the federal council a committee on
foreign affairs, over which Bavaria shall preside, to be
composed of the plenipotentiaries of the Kingdoms of Bavaria,
Saxony, and Würtemberg, and of two plenipotentiaries of the
other states of the Empire, who shall be elected annually by
the federal council. Clerks shall be placed at the disposal of
the committees to perform the necessary work appertaining
thereto.
Article 9.
Each member of the federal council shall have the right to
appear in the diet, and shall be heard there at any time when
he shall so request, to represent the views of his government,
even when the same shall not have been adopted by the majority
of the council. Nobody shall be at the same time a member of
the federal council and of the diet.
Article 10.
The Emperor shall afford the customary diplomatic protection
to the members of the federal council.
IV. Presidium.
Article II.
The King of Prussia shall be the president of the
confederation, and shall have the title of German Emperor. The
Emperor shall represent the Empire among nations, declare war,
and conclude peace in the name of the same, enter into
alliances and other conventions with foreign countries,
accredit embassadors, and receive them. For a declaration of
war in the name of the Empire, the consent of the federal
council shall be required, except in case of an attack upon
the territory of the confederation or its coasts. So far as
treaties with foreign countries refer to matters which,
according to article 4, are to be regulated by the legislature
of the Empire, the consent of the federal council shall be
required for their ratification, and the approval of the diet
shall be necessary to render them valid.
Article 12.
The Emperor shall have the right to convene the federal
council and the diet, and to open, adjourn, and close them.
Article 13.
The convocation of the federal council and the diet shall take
place annually, and the federal council may be called together
for the preparation of business without the diet; the latter,
however, shall not be convoked without the federal council.
Article 14.
The convocation of the federal council shall take place as
soon as demanded by one-third of its members.
Article 14.
The chancellor of the Empire, who shall be appointed by the
Emperor, shall preside in the federal council, and supervise
the conduct of its business. The chancellor of the Empire
shall have the right to delegate the power to represent him to
any member of the federal council.
Article 16.
The necessary bills shall be laid before the diet in the name
of the Emperor, in accordance with the resolutions of the
federal council, and they shall be represented in the diet by
members of the federal council or by special commissioners
appointed by said council.
Article 17.
To the Emperor shall belong the right to prepare and publish
the laws of the Empire. The laws and regulations of the
Emperor shall be published in the name of the Empire, and
require for their validity the signature of the chancellor of
the Empire, who thereby becomes responsible for their
execution.
Article 18.
The Emperor shall appoint the officers of the Empire, require
them to take the oath of allegiance, and dismiss them when
necessary. Officials appointed to an office of the Empire from
one of the states of the confederation shall enjoy the same
rights to which they were entitled in their native states by
their official position, provided no other legislative
provision shall have been made previously to their entrance
into the service of the Empire.
Article 19.
If states of the confederation shall not fulfill their
constitutional duties, proceedings may be instituted against
them by military execution. This execution shall be ordered by
the federal council, and enforced by the Emperor.
V. Diet.
Article 20.
The members of the diet shall be elected by universal
suffrage, and by direct secret ballot. Until regulated by law,
which is reserved by section 5 of the election law of May 31,
1869 (Bundesgesetzblatt, 1869, section 145,) 48 delegates
shall be elected in Bavaria, 17 in Würtemberg, 14 in Baden, 6
in Hesse, south of the river Main, and the total number of
delegates shall be 382.
Article 21.
Officials shall not require a leave of absence in order to
enter the diet. When a member of the diet accepts a salaried
office of the Empire, or a salaried office in one of the
states of the confederation, or accepts any office of the
Empire, or of a state, with which a high rank or salary is
connected, he shall forfeit his seat and vote in the diet, but
may recover his place in the same by a new election.
Article 22.
The proceedings of the diet shall be public. Truthful reports
of the proceedings of the public sessions of the diet shall
subject those making them to no responsibility.
Article 23.
The diet shall have the right to propose laws within the
jurisdiction of the Empire, and to refer petitions addressed
to it to the federal council or the chancellor of the Empire.
Article 24.
Each legislative period of the diet shall last three years.
The diet may be dissolved by a resolution of the federal
council, with the consent of the Emperor.
Article 25.
In the case of a dissolution of the diet, new elections shall
take place within a period of 60 days, and the diet shall
reassemble within a period of 90 days after the dissolution.
Article 26.
Unless by consent of the diet, an adjournment of that body
shall not exceed the period of 30 days, and shall not be
repeated during the same session, without such consent.
Article 27.
The diet shall examine into the legality of the election of
its members and decide thereon. It shall regulate the mode of
transacting business, and its own discipline, by establishing
rules therefor, and elect its president, vice-presidents, and
secretaries.
{550}
Article 28.
The diet shall pass laws by absolute majority. To render the
passage of laws valid, the presence of the majority of the
legal number of members shall be required. When passing laws
which do not affect the whole Empire, according to the
provisions of this constitution, the votes of only those
members shall be counted who shall have been elected in those
states of the confederation which the laws to be passed shall
affect.
Article 29.
The members of the diet shall be the representatives of the
entire people, and shall not be subject to orders and
instructions from their constituents.
Article 30.
No member of the diet shall at any time suffer legal
prosecution on account of his vote, or on account of
utterances made while in the performance of his functions, or
be held responsible outside of the diet for his actions.
Article 31.
Without the consent of the diet, none of its members shall be
tried or punished, during the session, for any offense
committed, except when arrested in the act of committing the
offense, or in the course of the following day. The same rule
shall apply in the case of arrests for debt. At the request of
the diet, all legal proceedings instituted against one of its
members, and likewise imprisonment, shall be suspended during
its session.
Article 32.
The members of the diet shall not be allowed to draw any
salary, or be compensated as such.
VI. Customs and Commerce.
Article 33.
Germany shall form a customs and commercial union, having a
common frontier for the collection of duties. Such territories
as cannot, by reason of their situation, be suitably embraced
within the said frontier, shall be excluded. It shall be
lawful to introduce all articles of commerce of a state of the
confederation into any other state of the confederation,
without paying any duty thereon, except so far as such
articles are subject to taxation therein.
Article 34.
The Hanseatic towns, Bremen and Hamburg, shall remain free
ports outside of the common boundary of the customs union,
retaining for that purpose a district of their own, or of the
surrounding territory, until they shall request to be admitted
into the said union.
Article 35.
The Empire shall have the exclusive power to legislate
concerning everything relating to the customs, the taxation of
salt and tobacco manufactured or raised in the territory of
the confederation; concerning the taxation of manufactured
brandy and beer, and of sugar and sirup prepared from beets or
other domestic productions. It shall have exclusive power to
legislate concerning the mutual protection of taxes upon
articles of consumption levied in the several states of the
Empire; against embezzlement; as well as concerning the
measures which are required, in granting exemption from the
payment of duties, for the security of the common customs
frontier. In Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, the matter of
imposing duties on domestic brandy and beer is reserved for
the legislature of each country. The states of the
confederation shall, however, endeavor to bring about uniform
legislation regarding the taxation of these articles.
Article 36.
The imposing of duties and excises on articles of consumption,
and the collection of the same (article 35,) is left to each
state of the confederation within its own territory, so far as
this has been done by each state heretofore. The Emperor shall
have the supervision of the institution of legal proceedings
by officials of the empire, whom he shall designate as
adjuncts to the custom or excise offices, and boards of
directors of the several states, after hearing the committee
of the Confederate Council on customs and revenues. Notices
given by these officials as to defects in the execution of the
laws of the Empire (article 35) shall be submitted to the
confederate council for action.
Article 37.
In taking action upon the rules and regulations for the
execution of the laws of the Empire, (article 35,) the vote of
the presiding officer shall decide, whenever he shall
pronounce for upholding the existing rule or regulation.
Article 38.
The amounts accruing from customs and other revenues
designated in article 35 of the latter, so far as they are
subject to legislation by the diet, shall go to the treasury
of the Empire. This amount is made up of the total receipts
from the customs and other revenues, after deducting
therefrom--
I. Tax compensations and reductions in conformity with
existing laws or regulations.
2. Reimbursements for taxes unduly imposed.
3. The costs for collection and administration, viz.:
a. In the department of customs, the costs which are
required for the protection and collection of customs on the
frontiers and in the frontier districts.
b. In the department of the duty on salt, the costs
which are used for the pay of the officers charged with
collecting and controlling these duties in the salt mines.
c. In the department of duties on beet-sugar and
tobacco, the compensation which is to be allowed, according to
the resolutions of the confederate council, to the several
state governments for the costs of the collection of these
duties.
d. Fifteen per cent. of the total receipts in the
departments of the other duties.
The territories situated outside of the common customs
frontier shall contribute to the expenses of the Empire by
paying an 'aversum,' (a sum of acquittance.) Bavaria,
Würtemberg, and Baden shall not share in the revenues from
duties on liquors and beer, which go into the treasury of the
Empire, nor in the corresponding portion of the aforesaid
'aversum.'
Article 39.
The quarterly statements to be regularly made by the revenue
officers of the federal states at the end of every quarter,
and the final settlements (to be made at the end of the year,
and after the closing of the account-books) of the receipts
from customs, which have become due in the course of the
quarter, or during the fiscal year, and the revenues of the
treasury of the Empire, according to article 38, shall be
arranged by the boards of directors of the federal states,
after a previous examination in general summaries in which
every duty is to be shown separately; these summaries shall be
transmitted to the federal committee on accounts. The latter
provisionally fixes, every three months, taking as a basis
these summaries, the amount due to the treasury of the Empire
from the treasury of each state, and it shall inform the
federal council and the federal States of this act;
furthermore, it shall submit to the federal council, annually,
the final statement of these amounts, with its remarks. The
federal council shall act upon the fixing of these amounts.
{551}
Article 40.
The terms of the customs-union treaty of July 8, 1867, remain
in force, so far as they have not been altered by the
provisions of this constitution, and as long as they are not
altered in the manner designated in articles 7 and 78.
VII. Railways.
Article 41.
Railways, which are considered necessary for the defense of
Germany or for purposes of general commerce, may be built for
the account of the Empire by a law of the Empire, even in
opposition to the will of those members of the confederation
through whose territory the railroads run, without detracting
from the rights of the sovereign of that country; or private
persons may be charged with their construction and receive
rights of expropriation. Every existing railway company is
bound to permit new railroad lines to be connected with it, at
the expense of these latter. All laws granting existing
railway companies the right of injunction against the building
of parallel or competition lines are hereby abolished
throughout the Empire, without detriment to rights already
acquired. Such right of injunction can henceforth not be
granted in concessions to be given hereafter.
Article 42.
The governments of the federal states bind themselves, in the
interest of general commerce, to have the German railways
managed as a uniform net-work, and for this purpose to have
the lines constructed and equipped according to a uniform
system.
Article 43.
Accordingly, as soon as possible, uniform arrangements as to
management, shall be made, and especially shall uniform
regulations be instituted for the police of the railroads. The
Empire shall take care that the administrative officers of the
railway lines keep the roads always in such a condition as is
required for public security, and that they be equipped with
the necessary rolling stock.
Article 44.
Railway companies are bound to establish such passenger trains
of suitable velocity as may be required for ordinary travel,
and for the establishment of harmonizing schedules of travel;
also, to make provision for such freight trains as may be
necessary for commercial purposes, and to establish, without
extra remuneration, offices for the direct forwarding of
passengers and freight trains, to be transferred, when
necessary, from one road to another.
Article 45.
The Empire shall have control over the tariff of fares. The
same shall endeavor to cause--
1. Uniform regulations to be speedily introduced on all German
railway lines.
2. The tariff to be reduced and made uniform as far as
possible, and particularly to cause a reduction of the tariff
for the transport of coal, coke, wood, minerals, stone, salt,
crude iron, manure, and similar articles, for long distances,
as demanded by the interests of agriculture and industry, and
to introduce a one-penny tariff as soon as practicable.
Article 46.
In case of distress, especially in case of an extraordinary
rise in the price of provisions, it shall be the duty of the
railway companies to adopt temporarily a low special tariff,
to be fixed by the Emperor, on motion of the competent
committee, for the forwarding of grain, flour, vegetables, and
potatoes. This tariff shall, however, not be less than the
lowest rate for raw produce existing on the said line. The
foregoing provisions, and those of articles 42 to 45, shall
not apply to Bavaria. The imperial government has, however,
the power, also with regard to Bavaria, to establish, by way
of legislation, uniform rules for the construction and
equipment of such railways as may be of importance for the
defense of the country.
Article 47.
The managers of all railways shall be required to obey,
without hesitation, requisitions made by the authorities of
the Empire for the use of their roads for the defense of
Germany. Particularly shall the military and all material of
war be forwarded at uniform reduced rates.
VIII. Mails and Telegraphs.
Article 48.
The mails and telegraphs shall be organized and managed as
state institutions throughout the German Empire. The
legislation of the empire in regard to postal and telegraphic
affairs, provided for in article 4, does not extend to those
matters whose regulation is left to the managerial
arrangement, according to the principles which have controlled
the North German administration of mails and telegraphs.
Article 49.
The receipts of mails and telegraphs are a joint affair
throughout the Empire. The expenses shall be paid from the
general receipts. The surplus goes into the treasury of the
Empire. (Section 12.).
Article 50.
The Emperor has the supreme supervision of the administration
of mails and telegraphs. The authorities appointed by him are
in duty bound and authorized to see that uniformity be
established and maintained in the organization of the
administration and in the transaction of business, as also in
regard to the qualifications of employés. The Emperor shall
have the power to make general administrative regulations, and
also exclusively to regulate the relations which are to exist
between the post and telegraph offices of Germany and those of
other countries. It shall be the duty of all officers of the
post-office and telegraph department to obey imperial orders.
This obligation shall be included in their oath of office. The
appointment of superior officers (such as directors,
counselors, and superintendents,) as they shall be required
for the administration of the mails and telegraphs, in the
various districts; also the appointment of officers of the
posts and telegraphs (such as inspectors or comptrollers,)
acting for the aforesaid authorities in the several districts,
in the capacity of supervisors, shall be made by the Emperor
for the whole territory of the German Empire, and these
officers shall take the oath of fealty to him as a part of
their oath of office. The governments of the several states
shall be informed in due time, by means of imperial
confirmation and official publication, of the aforementioned
appointments, so far as they may relate to their territories.
Other officers required by the department of mails and
telegraphs, as also all officers to be employed at the various
stations, and for technical purposes, and hence officiating at
the actual centers of communication, &c., shall be appointed
by the respective governments of the states. Where there is no
independent administration of inland mails or telegraphs, the
terms of the various treaties are to be enforced.
{552}
Article 51.
In assigning the surplus of the post-office department to the
treasury of the Empire for general purposes, (article 49,) the
following proceeding is to be observed in consideration of the
difference which has heretofore existed in the clear receipts
of the post-office departments of the several territories, for
the purpose of securing a suitable equalization during the
period of transition below named. Of the post-office surplus,
which accumulated in the several mail districts during the
five years from 1861 to 1865, an average yearly surplus shall
be computed, and the share which every separate mail district
has had in the surplus resulting therefrom for the whole
territory of the Empire shall be fixed upon by a percentage.
In accordance with the proportion thus made, the several
states shall be credited on the account of their other
contributions to the expenses of the empire with their quota
accruing from the postal surplus in the Empire, for a period
of eight years subsequent to their entrance into the
post-office department of the Empire. At the end of the said
eight years this distinction shall cease, and any surplus in
the post-office department shall go, without division, into
the treasury of the Empire, according to the principle
enunciated in article 49. Of the quota of the post-office
department surplus resulting during the aforementioned period
of eight years in favor of the Hanseatic towns, one-half shall
every year be placed at the disposal of the Emperor, for the
purpose of providing for the establishment of uniform
post-offices in the Hanseatic towns.
Article 52.
The stipulations of the foregoing articles 48 to 51 do not
apply to Bavaria and Würtemberg. In their stead the following
stipulation shall be valid for these two states of the
confederation. The Empire alone is authorized to legislate
upon the privileges of the post-office and telegraph
departments, on the legal position of both institutions toward
the public, upon the franking privilege and rates of postage,
and upon the establishment of rates for telegraphic
correspondence into Hanseatic towns. Exclusive, however, of
managerial arrangements, and the fixing of tariffs for
internal communication within Bavaria and Würtemberg. In the
same manner the Empire shall regulate postal and telegraphic
communication with foreign countries, excepting the immediate
communication of Bavaria and Würtemberg with their neighboring
states, not belonging to the Empire, in regard to which
regulation the stipulations in article 49 of the postal treaty
of November 23, 1867, remains in force. Bavaria and Würtemberg
shall not share in the postal and telegraphic receipts which
belong to the treasury of the Empire.
IX. Marine and Navigation.
Article 53.
The navy of the Empire is a united one, under the supreme
command of the Emperor. The Emperor is charged with its
organization and arrangement, and he shall appoint the
officers and officials of the navy, and in his name these and
the seamen are to be sworn in. The harbor of Kiel and the
harbor of the Iade are imperial war harbors. The expenditures
required for the establishment and maintenance of the navy and
the institutions connected therewith shall be defrayed from
the treasury of the Empire. All sea-faring men of the Empire,
including machinists and hands employed in ship-building, are
exempt from service in the army, but obliged to serve in the
imperial navy. The apportionment of men to supply the wants of
the navy shall be made according to the actual sea-faring
population, and the quota furnished in accordance herewith by
each state shall be credited to the army account.
Article 54.
The merchant vessels of all states of the confederation shall
form a united commercial marine. The Empire shall determine
the process for ascertaining the tonnage of sea-going vessels,
shall regulate the issuing of tonnage-certificates and
sea-letters, and shall fix the conditions to which a permit
for commanding a sea-going vessel shall be subject. The
merchant vessels of all the states of the confederation shall
be admitted on an equal footing to the harbors, and to all
natural and artificial water-courses of the several states of
the confederation, and shall receive the same usage therein.
The duties which shall be collected from sea-going vessels, or
levied upon their freights, for the use of naval institutions
in the harbors, shall not exceed the amount required for the
maintenance and ordinary repair of these institutions. On all
natural water-courses, duties are only to be levied for the
use of special establishments, which serve for facilitating
commercial intercourse. These duties, as well as the duties
for navigating such artificial channels, which are property of
the state, are not to exceed the amount required for the
maintenance and ordinary repair of the institutions and
establishments. These rules apply to rafting, so far as it is
carried on on navigable water-courses. The levying of other or
higher duties upon foreign vessels or their freights than
those which are paid by the vessels of the federal states or
their freights does not belong to the various states, but to
the Empire.
Article 55.
The flag of the war and merchant navy shall be black, white,
and red.
X. Consular Affairs.
Article 56.
The Emperor shall have the supervision of all consular affairs
of the German Empire, and he shall appoint consuls, after
hearing the committee of the federal council on commerce and
traffic. No new state consulates are to be established within
the jurisdiction of the German consuls. German consuls shall
perform the functions of state consuls for the states of the
confederation not represented in their district. All the now
existing state consulates shall be abolished, as soon as the
organization of the German consulates shall be completed, in
such a manner that the representation of the separate
interests of all the federal states shall be recognized by the
federal council as secured by the German consulates.
XI. Military Affairs of the Empire.
Article 57.
Every German is subject to military duty, and in the discharge
of this duty no substitute can be accepted.
Article 58.
The costs and the burden of all the military system of the
Empire are to be borne equally by all the federal states and
their subjects, and no privileges or molestations to the
several states or classes are admissible. Where an equal
distribution of the burdens cannot be effected 'in natura'
without prejudice to the public welfare, affairs shall be
equalized by legislation in accordance with the principles of
justice.
{553}
Article 59.
Every German capable of bearing arms shall serve for seven
years in the standing army, ordinarily from the end of his
twentieth to the beginning of his twenty-eighth year; the
first three years in the army of the field, the last four
years in the reserve; during the next five years he shall
belong to the militia. In those states of the confederation in
which heretofore a longer term of service than twelve years
was required by law, the gradual reduction of the required
time of service shall take place in such a manner as is
compatible with the interests and the war-footing of the army
of the Empire. As regards the emigration of men belonging to
the reserve, only those provisions shall be in force which
apply to the emigration of members of the militia.
Article 60.
The strength of the German army in time of peace shall be,
until the 31st December, 1871, one per cent. of the population
of 1867, and shall be furnished by the several federal states
in proportion to their population. In future the strength of
the army in time of peace shall be fixed by legislation.
Article 61.
After the publication of this constitution the full Prussian
military system of legislation shall be introduced without
delay throughout the Empire, as well the statutes themselves
as the regulations, instructions, and ordinances issued for
their execution, explanation, or completion; thus, in
particular, the military penal code of April 3, 1845; the
military orders of the penal court of April 3, 1845; the
ordinance concerning the courts of honor of July 20, 1843; the
regulations with respect to recruiting, time of service,
matters relating to the service and subsistence, to the
quartering of troops, claims for damages, mobilizing, &c., for
times of peace and war. Orders for the attendance of the
military upon religious services is, however, excluded. When a
uniform organization of the German army shall have been
established, a comprehensive military law for the Empire shall
be submitted to the diet and the federal council for their
action in accordance with the constitution.
Article 62.
For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the whole German
army, and the institutions connected therewith, the sum of 225
(two hundred and twenty-five) thalers, shall be placed at the
disposal of the Emperor until the 31st of December, 1871, for
each man in the army on the peace-footing, according to
article 60. (See section 12.) After the 31st of December,
1871, the payment of these contributions of the several states
to the imperial treasury must be continued: The strength of
the army in time of peace, which has been temporarily fixed in
article 60, shall be taken as a basis for calculating these
amounts until it shall be altered by a law of the Empire. The
expenditure of this sum for the whole army of the Empire and
its establishments shall be determined by a budget law. In
determining the budget of military expenditures, the lawfully
established organization of the imperial army, in accordance
with this constitution, shall be taken as a basis.
Article 63.
The total land force of the Empire shall form one army, which,
in war and in peace, shall be under the command of the
Emperor. The regiments, &c., throughout the whole German army
shall bear continuous numbers. The principal colors and the
cut of the garments of the Royal Prussian army shall serve as
a pattern for the rest of the army. It is left to commanders
of contingent forces to choose the external badges, cockades,
&c. It shall be the duty and the right of the Emperor to take
care that, throughout the German army, all divisions be kept
full and well equipped, and that unity be established and
maintained in regard to organization and formation, equipment,
and command in the training of the men, as well as in the
qualification of the officers. For this purpose the Emperor
shall be authorized to satisfy himself at any time of the
condition of the several contingents, and to provide remedies
for existing defects. The Emperor shall determine the
strength, composition, and division of the contingents of the
imperial army, and also the organization of the militia, and
he shall have the right to designate garrisons within the
territory of the confederation, as also to call any portion of
the army into active service. In order to maintain the
necessary unity in the care, arming, and equipment of all
troops of the German army, all orders hereafter to be issued
for the Prussian army shall be communicated in due form to the
commanders of the remaining contingents by the committee on
the army and fortifications, provided for in article 8, No. 1.
Article 64.
All German troops are bound implicitly to obey the orders of
the Emperor. This obligation shall be included in the oath of
allegiance. The commander-in-chief of a contingent, as well as
all officers commanding troops of more than one contingent,
and all commanders of fortresses, shall be appointed by the
Emperor. The officers appointed by the Emperor shall take the
oath of fealty to him. The appointment of generals, or of
officers performing the duties of generals, in a contingent
force, shall be in each case subject to the approval of the
Emperor. The Emperor has the right with regard to the transfer
of officers, with or without promotion, to positions which are
to be filled in the service of the Empire, be it in the
Prussian army or in other contingents, to select from the
officers of all the contingents of the army of the Empire.
Article 65.
The right to build fortresses within the territory of the
Empire shall belong to the Emperor, who, according to section
12, shall ask for the appropriation of the necessary means
required for that purpose, if not already included in the
regular appropriation.
Article 66.
If not otherwise stipulated, the princes of the Empire and the
senates shall appoint the officers of their respective
contingents, subject to the restriction of article 64. They
are the chiefs of all the troops belonging to their respective
territories, and are entitled to the honors connected
therewith. They shall have especially the right to hold
inspections at any time, and receive, besides the regular
reports and announcements of changes for publication, timely
information of all promotions and appointments concerning
their respective contingents. They shall also have the right
to employ, for police purposes, not only their own troops but
all other contingents of the army of the Empire who are
stationed in their respective territories.
Article 67.
The unexpended portion of the military appropriation shall,
under no circumstances, fall to the share of a single
government, but at all times to the treasury of the Empire.
Article 68.
The Emperor shall have the power, if the public security of
the Empire demands it, to declare martial law in any part
thereof, until the publication of a law regulating the
grounds, the form of announcement, and the effects of such a
declaration, the provisions of the Prussian law of June 4,
1851, shall be substituted therefor. (Laws of 1851, page 451.)
{554}
Addition to section XI.
The provisions contained in this section shall go into effect
in Bavaria as provided for in the treaty of alliance of
November 23, 1870, ( Bundesgesetzblatt, 1871, section 9,)
under III, section 5, in Würtemberg, as provided for in the
military convention of November 21-25, 1870, (
Bundesgesetzblatt, 1870, section 658.)
XII. Finances of the Empire.
Article 69.
All receipts and expenditures of the Empire shall be estimated
yearly, and included in the financial estimate. The latter
shall be fixed by law before the beginning of the fiscal year,
according to the following principles:
Article 70.
The surplus of the previous year, as well as the customs
duties, the common excise duties, and the revenues derived
from the postal and telegraph service, shall be applied to the
defrayal of all general expenditure. In so far as these
expenditures are not covered by the receipts, they shall be
raised, as long as no taxes of the Empire shall have been
established, by assessing the several states of the Empire
according to their population, the amount of the assessment to
be fixed by the Chancellor of the Empire in accordance with
the budget agreed upon.
Article 71.
The general expenditure shall be, as a rule, granted for one
year; they may, however, in special cases, be granted for a
longer period. During the period of transition fixed in
Article 60, the financial estimate, properly classified, of
the expenditures of the army shall be laid before the federal
council and the diet for their information.
Article 72.
An annual report of the expenditure of all the receipts of
the Empire shall be rendered to the federal council and the
diet, through the Chancellor of the Empire.
Article 73.
In cases of extraordinary requirements, a loan may be
contracted in accordance with the laws of the Empire, such
loan to be granted by the Empire.
Addition to section XII.
Articles 69 and 71 apply to the expenditures for the Bavarian
army only according to the provisions of the addition to
section XI of the treaty of November 23, 1870; and article 72
only so far as is required to inform the federal council and
the diet of the assignment to Bavaria of the required sum for
the Bavarian army.
XIII. Settlement of Disputes and Modes of Punishment.
Article 74.
Every attempt against the existence, the integrity, the
security, or the constitution of the German Empire; finally,
any offense committed against the federal council, the diet, a
member of the federal council, or of the diet, a magistrate or
public official of the Empire, while in the execution of his
duty, or with reference to his official position, by word,
writing, printing, signs, or caricatures, shall be judicially
investigated, and upon conviction punished in the several
states of the Empire, according to the laws therein existing,
or which shall hereafter exist in the same, according to which
laws a similar offense against anyone of the states of the
Empire, its constitution, legislature, members of its
legislature, authorities or officials is to be judged.
Article 75.
For those offenses, specified in Article 74, against the
German Empire, which, if committed against one of the states
of the Empire, would be deemed high treason, the superior
court of appeals of the three free Hanseatic towns at Lubeck
shall be the competent deciding tribunal in the first and last
resort. More definite provisions as to the competency and the
proceedings of the superior court of appeals shall be adopted
by the Legislature of the Empire. Until the passage of a law
of the Empire, the existing competency of the courts in the
respective states of the Empire, and the provisions relative
to the proceedings of those courts, shall remain in force.
Article 76.
Disputes between the different states of the confederation, so
far as they are not of a private nature, and therefore to be
decided by the competent authorities, shall be settled by the
federal council, at the request of one of the parties.
Disputes relating to constitutional matters in those of the
states of the confederation whose constitution contains no
provision for the settlement of such differences, shall be
adjusted by the federal council, at the request of one of the
parties, or, if this cannot be done, they shall be settled by
the legislative power of the confederation.
Article 77.
If in one of the states of the confederation justice shall be
denied, and no sufficient relief can be procured by legal
measures, it shall be the duty of the federal council to
receive substantiated complaints concerning denial or
restriction of justice, which are to be judged according to
the constitution and the existing laws of the respective
states of the confederation, and thereupon to obtain judicial
relief from the confederate government in the matter which
shall have given rise to the complaint.
XIV. General Provision.
Amendments of the constitution shall be made by legislative
enactment. They shall be considered as rejected when 14 votes
are cast against them in the federal council. The provisions
of the constitution of the Empire, by which fixed rights of
individual states of the confederation are established in
their relation to the whole, shall only be modified with the
consent of that state of the confederation which is
immediately concerned.
----------CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.
The following text of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan,
promulgated by the Emperor, February 11, 1889, is from a
pamphlet published at Johns Hopkins University on the occasion
of a meeting of professors, students and guests, April 17,
1889, to celebrate its promulgation:
{555}
Having, by virtue of the glories of Our Ancestors, ascended
the throne of a lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal;
desiring to promote the welfare of, and to give development to
the moral and intellectual faculties of Our beloved subjects,
the very same that have been favoured with the benevolent care
and affectionate vigilance of Our Ancestors; and hoping to
maintain the prosperity of the State, in concert with Our
people and with their support, We hereby promulgate, in
pursuance of Our Imperial Rescript of the 14th day of the 10th
month of the 14th year of Meiji, a fundamental law of State,
to exhibit the principles, by which We are to be guided in Our
conduct, and to point out to what Our descendants and Our
subjects and their descendants are forever to conform. The
rights of sovereignty of the State, We have inherited from Our
Ancestors, and We shall bequeath them to Our descendants.
Neither We nor they shall in future fail to wield them, in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution hereby
granted. We now declare to respect and protect the security of
the rights and of the property of Our people, and to secure to
them the complete enjoyment of the same, within the extent of
the provisions of the present Constitution and of the law. The
Imperial Diet shall first be convoked for the 23d year of
Meiji, and the time of its opening shall be the date, when the
present Constitution comes into force. When in the future it
may become necessary to amend any of the provisions of the
present Constitution, We or Our successors shall assume the
initiative right, and submit a project for the same to the
Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet shall pass its vote upon it,
according to the conditions imposed by the present
Constitution, and in no otherwise shall Our descendants or Our
subjects be permitted to attempt any alteration thereof. Our
Ministers of State, on Our behalf, shall be held responsible
for the carrying out of the present Constitution, and Our
present and future subjects shall forever assume the duty of
allegiance to the present Constitution. [His Imperial
Majesty's Sign-Manual.] The 11th day of the 2nd month of the
22nd year of Meiji. [Countersigned by Ministers.]
Chapter I.
Article I.
The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a
line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.
Article II.
The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial male
descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House
Law.
Article III.
The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.
Article IV.
The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself
the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to
the provisions of the present Constitution.
Article V.
The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent
of the Imperial Diet.
Article VI.
The Emperor gives sanction to laws, and orders them to be
promulgated and executed.
Article VII.
The Emperor convokes the Imperial Diet, opens, closes, and
prorogues it, and dissolves the House of Representatives.
Article VIII.
The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain
public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the
Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place
of law. Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the
Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not
approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them
to be invalid for the future.
Article IX.
The Emperor issues, or causes to be issued, the Ordinances
necessary for the carrying out of the laws, or for the
maintenance of the public peace and order, and for the
promotion of the welfare of the subjects. But no Ordinance
shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.
Article X.
The Emperor determines the organization of the different
branches of the administration, and the salaries of all civil
and military officers, and appoints and dismisses the same.
Exceptions especially provided for in the present Constitution
or in other laws, shall be in accordance with the respective
provisions (bearing thereon).
Article XI.
The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and Navy.
Article XII.
The Emperor determines the organization and peace standing of
the Army and Navy.
Article XIII.
The Emperor declares war, makes peace, and concludes treaties.
Article XIV.
The Emperor proclaims the law of siege. The conditions and
effects of the law of siege shall be determined by law.
Article XV
The Emperor confers titles of nobility, rank, orders, and
other marks of honor.
Article XVI.
The Emperor orders amnesty, pardon, commutation of punishment,
and rehabilitation.
Article XVII.
A Regency shall be instituted in conformity with the
provisions of the Imperial House Law. The Regent shall
exercise the powers appertaining to the Emperor in His name.
Chapter II.
Article XVIII.
The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject shall be
determined by law.
Article XIX.
Japanese subjects may, according to qualifications determined
in law or ordinances, be appointed to civil or military
offices equally, and may fill any other public offices.
Article XX.
Japanese subjects are amenable to service in the Army or Navy,
according to the provisions of law.
Article XXI.
Japanese subjects are amenable to the duty of paying taxes,
according to the provisions of law.
Article XXII.
Japanese subjects shall have the liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits of law.
Article XXIII.
No Japanese subject shall be arrested, detained, tried, or
punished, unless according to law.
Article XXIV.
No Japanese subject shall be deprived of his right of being
tried by the judges determined by law.
Article XXV.
Except in the cases provided for in the law, the house of no
Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his
consent.
Article XXVI.
Except in the cases mentioned in the law, the secrecy of the
letters of every Japanese subject shall remain inviolate.
Article XXVII.
The right of property of every Japanese subject shall remain
inviolate. Measures necessary to be taken for the public
benefit shall be provided for by law.
Article XXVIII.
Japanese subjects shall, within limits not prejudicial to
peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as
subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief.
{556}
Article XXIX.
Japanese subjects shall, within the limits of law, enjoy the
liberty of speech, writing, publication, public meetings, and
associations.
Article XXX.
Japanese subjects may present petitions, by observing the
proper forms of respect, and by complying with the rules
specially provided for the same.
Article XXXI.
The provisions contained in the present Chapter shall not
affect the exercise of the powers appertaining to the Emperor
in times of war or in cases of a national emergency.
Article XXXII.
Each and everyone of the provisions contained in the preceding
Articles of the present Chapter, that are not in conflict with
the laws or the rules and discipline of the Army and Navy,
shall apply to the officers and men of the Army and of the
Navy.
Chapter III.
Article XXXIII.
The Imperial Diet shall consist of two Houses, a House of
Peers and a House of Representatives.
Article XXXIV.
The House of Peers shall, in accordance with the Ordinance
concerning the House of Peers, be composed of the members of
the Imperial Family, of the orders of nobility, and of those
persons who have been nominated thereto by the Emperor.
Article XXXV.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
elected by the people according to the provisions of the Law
of Election.
Article XXXVI.
No one can at one and the same time be a member of both
Houses.
Article XXXVII.
Every law requires the consent of the Imperial Diet.
Article XXXVIII.
Both Houses shall vote upon projects of law submitted to it by
the Government, and may respectively initiate projects of law.
Article XXXIX.
A Bill, which has been rejected by either the one or the other
of the two houses, shall not be again brought in during the
same session.
Article XL.
Both Houses can make representations to the Government, as to
laws or upon any other subject. When, however, such
representations are not accepted, they cannot be made a second
time during the same session.
Article XLI.
The Imperial Diet shall be convoked every year.
Article XLII.
A session of the Imperial Diet shall last during three months.
In case of necessity, the duration of a session may be
prolonged by Imperial Order.
Article XLI II.
When urgent necessity arises, an extraordinary session may be
convoked, in addition to the ordinary one. The duration of an
extraordinary session shall be determined by Imperial Order.
Article XLIV.
The opening, closing, prolongation of session, and prorogation
of the Imperial Diet, shall be effected simultaneously for
both Houses. In case the House of Representatives has been
ordered to dissolve, the House of Peers shall at the same time
be prorogued.
Article XLV.
When the House of Representatives has been ordered to
dissolve, Members shall be caused by Imperial Order to be
newly elected, and the new House shall be convoked within five
months from the day of dissolution.
Article XLVI.
No debate can be opened and no vote can be taken in either
House of the Imperial Diet, unless not less than one-third of
the whole number of the members thereof is present.
Article XLVII.
Votes shall be taken in both Houses by absolute majority. In
the case of a tie vote, the President shall have the casting
vote.
Article XLVIII.
The deliberations of both Houses shall be held in public. The
deliberations may, however, upon demand of the Government or
by resolution of the House, be held in secret sitting.
Article XLIX.
Both Houses of the Imperial Diet may respectively present
addresses to the Emperor.
Article L.
Both Houses may receive petitions presented by subjects.
Article LI.
Both Houses may enact, besides what is provided for in the
present Constitution and in the Law of the Houses, rules
necessary for the management of their internal affairs.
Article LII.
No member of either House shall be held responsible outside
the respective Houses, for any opinion uttered or for any vote
given in the House. When, however, a Member himself has given
publicity to his opinions by public speech, by documents in
printing or in writing, or by any other similar means he
shall, in the matter, be amenable to the general law.
Article LIII.
The members of both Houses shall, during the session, be free
from arrest, unless with the consent of the House, except in
cases of flagrant delicts, or of offences connected with a
state of internal commotion or with a foreign trouble.
Article LIV.
The Ministers of State and the Delegates of the Government
may, at any time, take seats and speak in either House.
Chapter IV.
Article LV.
The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to
the Emperor, and be responsible for it. All Laws, Imperial
Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that
relate to the affairs of the State, require the
countersignature of a Minister of State.
Article LVI.
The Privy Council shall, in accordance with the provisions for
the organization of the Privy Council, deliberate upon
important matters of State, when they have been consulted by
the Emperor.
Chapter V.
Article LVII.
The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law
according to law, in the name of the Emperor. The organization
of the Courts of Law shall be determined by law.
Article LVIII.
The judges shall be appointed from among those, who possess
proper qualifications according to law. No judge shall be
deprived of his position, unless by way of criminal sentence
or disciplinary punishment. Rules for disciplinary punishment
shall be determined by law.
Article LIX.
Trials and judgments of a Court shall be conducted publicly.
When, however, there exists any fear that such publicity may
be prejudicial to peace and order, or to the maintenance of
public morality, the public trial may be suspended by
provision of law or by the decision of the Court of Law.
Article LX.
All matters, that fall within the competency of a special
Court, shall be specially provided for by law.
{557}
Article LXI.
No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been
infringed by the legal measures of the executive authorities,
and which shall come within the competency of the Court of
Administrative Litigation specially established by law, shall
be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law.
Chapter VI.
Article LXII.
The imposition of a new tax or the modification of the rates
(of an existing one) shall be determined by law. However, all
such administrative fees or other revenue having the nature of
compensation shall not fall within the category of the above
clause. The raising of national loans and the contracting of
other liabilities to the charge of the National Treasury,
except those that are provided in the Budget, shall require
the consent of the Imperial Diet.
Article LXIII.
The taxes levied at present shall, in so far as they are not
remodelled by new law, be collected according to the old
system.
Article LXIV.
The expenditure and revenue of the State require the consent
of the Imperial Diet by means of an annual Budget. Any and all
expenditures overpassing the appropriations set forth in the
Titles and Paragraphs of the Budget, or that are not provided
for in the Budget, shall subsequently require the approbation
of the Imperial Diet.
Article LXV.
The Budget shall be first laid before the House of
Representatives.
Article LXVI.
The expenditures of the Imperial House shall be defrayed every
year out of the National Treasury, according to the present
fixed amount for the same, and shall not require the consent
thereto of the Imperial Diet, except in case an increase
thereof is found necessary.
Article LXVII.
Those already fixed expenditures based by the Constitution
upon the powers appertaining to the Emperor, and such
expenditures as may have arisen by the effect of law, or that
appertain to the legal obligations of the Government, shall be
neither rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet, without the
concurrence of the Government.
Article LXVIII.
In order to meet special requirements, the Government may ask
the consent of the Imperial Diet to a certain amount as a
Continuing Expenditure Fund, for a previously fixed number of
years.
Article LXIX.
In order to supply deficiencies which are unavoidable, in the
Budget, and to meet requirements unprovided for in the same, a
Reserve Fund shall be provided in the Budget.
Article LXX.
When the Imperial Diet cannot be convoked, owing to the
external or internal condition of the country, in case of
urgent need for the maintenance of public safety, the
Government may take all necessary financial measures, by means
of an Imperial Ordinance. In the case mentioned in the
preceding clause, the matter shall be submitted to the
Imperial Diet at its next session, and its approbation shall
be obtained thereto.
Article LXXI.
When the Imperial Diet has not voted on the Budget, or when
the Budget has not been brought into actual existence, the
Government shall carry out the Budget of the preceding year.
Article LXXII.
The final account of the expenditures and revenue of the State
shall be verified and confirmed by the Board of Audit, and it
shall be submitted by the Government to the Imperial Diet,
together with the report of verification of the said Board.
The organization and competency of the Board of Audit shall be
determined by law separately.
Chapter VII.
Article LXXIII.
When it has become necessary in future to amend the provisions
of the present Constitution, a project to that effect shall be
submitted to the Imperial Diet by Imperial Order. In the above
case, neither House can open the debate, unless not less than
two-thirds of the whole number of Members are present, and no
amendment can be passed, unless a majority of not less than
two-thirds of the Members present is obtained.
Article LXXIV.
No modification of the Imperial House Law shall be required to
be submitted to the deliberation of the Imperial Diet. No
provision of the present Constitution can be modified by the
Imperial House Law.
Article LXXV.
No modification can be introduced into the Constitution, or
into the Imperial House Law, during the time of a Regency.
Article LXXVI.
Existing legal enactments, such as laws, regulations,
Ordinances, or by whatever names they may be called, shall, so
far as they do not conflict with the present Constitution,
continue in force. All existing contracts or orders, that
entail obligations upon the Government, and that are connected
with expenditure shall come within the scope of Article LXVII.
----------CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF LYCURGUS.
"The constitution of Lykourgos was especially adapted to make
heroes, and it made them. To serve his country and die for
her, this was the Spartan's chief ambition. 'Victory or
death!' was their war-cry; honor, their supreme law. 'That
most to be admired in Lykourgos,' says Xenophon, 'is that he
was able to make a noble death seem preferable to a dishonored
life. This great lawgiver provided for the happiness of the
brave man, and devoted the coward to infamy. ... At Sparta men
would be ashamed to sit at table with the coward, to touch his
weapons or his hand: in the games neither party will receive
him. He has the lowest place at the dances and the dramatic
representations. In the street he is pushed aside by younger
men. His daughters share in his disgrace; they are excluded
from public feasts, and can obtain no husbands.'"
V. Duruy, History of Greece, volume 1, section 2, page 467.
Mr. Grote remarks upon the "unparalleled steadiness" of the
Spartan constitution ascribed to Lycurgus, which was
maintained "for four or five successive centuries, in the
midst of governments like the Grecian, all of which had
undergone more or less of fluctuation. No considerable
revolution--not even any palpable or formal change--occurred
in it from the days of the Messenian war down to those of Agis
III.: in spite of the irreparable blow which the power and
territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas and the
Thebans, the form of government nevertheless remained
unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could
trace an unbroken peaceable descent from a high antiquity and
from its real or supposed founder."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 6 (volume 2).
See SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION.
{558}
CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.
The following translated text of the Constitution of Mexico is
from Bulletin No. 9 of the Bureau of the American Republics,
published in July, 1891:
Preamble.
In the name of God and with the authority of the Mexican
people. The representatives of the different States, of the
District and Territories which compose the Republic of Mexico,
called by the Plan proclaimed in Ayutla the 1st of March,
1854, amended in Acapulco the 11th day of the same month and
year, and by the summons issued the 17th of October, 1855, to
constitute the nation under the form of a popular,
representative, democratic republic, exercising the powers
with which they are invested, comply with the requirements of
their high office, decreeing the following political
Constitution of the Mexican Republic, on the indestructible
basis of its legitimate independence, proclaimed the 16th of
September, 1810, and completed the 27th of September, 1821.
Article I.
The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the
basis and the object of social institutions. Consequently they
declare that all the laws and all the authorities of the
country must respect and maintain the guarantees which the
present Constitution establishes.
Article 2.
In the Republic all are born free. Slaves who set foot upon
the national territory recover, by that act alone, their
liberty, and have a right to the protection of the laws.
Article 3.
Instruction is free. The law shall determine what professions
require a diploma for their exercise, and with what requisites
they must be issued.
Article 4.
Every man is free to adopt the profession, industrial pursuit,
or occupation which suits him, the same being useful and
honorable, and to avail himself of its products. Nor shall
anyone be hindered in the exercise of such profession,
industrial pursuit, or occupation, unless by judicial sentence
when such exercise attacks the rights of a third party, or by
governmental resolution, dictated in terms which the law marks
out, when it offends the rights of society.
Article 5.
No one shall be obliged to give personal services without just
compensation, and without his full consent. The state shall
not permit any contract, pact, or agreement to be carried into
effect which has for its object the diminution, loss, or
irrevocable sacrifice of the liberty of man, whether it be for
the sake of labor, education, or a religious vow. The law,
consequently, may not recognize monastic orders, nor may it
permit their establishment, whatever may be the denomination
or object with which they claim to be formed.
[Footnote: This sentence was introduced into the original
article September 25, 1873, with other less important
amendments.]
Neither may an agreement be permitted in which anyone
stipulates for his proscription or banishment.
Article 6.
The expression of ideas shall not be the object of any
judicial or administrative inquisition, except in case it
attacks morality, the rights of a third party, provokes some
crime or misdemeanor, or disturbs public order.
Article 7.
The liberty to write and to publish writings on any subject
whatsoever is inviolable. No law or authority shall establish
previous censure, nor require security from authors or
printers, nor restrict the liberty of the press, which has no
other limits than respect of private life, morality, and the
public peace. The crimes which are committed by means of the
press shall be judged by the competent tribunals of the
Federation, or by those of the States, those of the Federal
District and the Territory of Lower California, in accordance
with their penal laws.
[Footnote: This article was amended May 15, 1883, by
introducing the last sentence as a substitute for the
following: "The crimes of the press shall be judged by one
jury which attests the fact and by another which applies the
law and designates the punishment."]
Article 8.
The right of petition, exercised in writing in a peaceful and
respectful manner, is inviolable; but in political matters
only citizens of the Republic may exercise it. To every
petition must be returned a written opinion by the authority
to whom it may have been addressed, and the latter is obliged
to make the result known to the petitioner.
Article 9.
No one may be deprived of the right peacefully to assemble or
unite with others for any lawful object whatsoever, but only
citizens of the Republic may do this in order to take part in
the political affairs of the country. No armed assembly has a
right to deliberate.
Article 10.
Every man has a right to possess and carry arms for his
security and legitimate defence. The law shall designate what
arms are prohibited and the punishment which those shall incur
who carry them.
Article 11.
Every man has a right to enter and to go out of the Republic,
to travel through its territory and change his residence,
without the necessity of a letter of security, passport,
safe-conduct, or other similar requisite. The exercise of this
right shall not prejudice the legitimate faculties of the
judicial or administrative authority in cases of criminal or
civil responsibility.
Article 12.
There are not, nor shall there be recognized in the Republic,
titles of nobility, or prerogatives, or hereditary honors.
Only the people, legitimately represented, may decree
recompenses in honor of those who may have rendered or may
render eminent services to the country or to humanity.
Article 13.
In the Mexican Republic no one may be judged by special law
nor by special tribunals. No person or corporation may have
privileges, or enjoy emoluments, which are not compensation
for a public service and are established by law. Martial law
may exist only for crimes and offences which have a definite
connection with military discipline. The law shall determine
with all clearness the cases included in this exception.
Article 14.
No retroactive law shall be enacted. No one may be judged or
sentenced except by laws made prior to the act, and exactly
applicable to it, and by a tribunal which shall have been
previously established by law.
Article 15.
Treaties shall never be made for the extradition of political
offenders, nor for the extradition of those violators of the
public order who may have held in the country where they
committed the offence the position of slaves; nor agreements
or treaties in virtue of which may be altered the guarantees
and rights which this Constitution grants to the man and to
the citizen.
{559}
Article 16.
No one may be molested in his person, family, domicile, papers
and possessions, except in virtue of an order written by the
competent authority, which shall establish and assign the
legal cause for the proceedings. In the case of in flagrante
delicto any person may apprehend the offender and his
accomplices, placing them without delay at the disposal of the
nearest authorities.
Article 17.
No one may be arrested for debts of a purely civil character.
No one may exercise violence in order to reclaim his rights.
The tribunals shall always be prompt to administer justice.
This shall be gratuitous, judicial costs being consequently
abolished.
Article 18.
Imprisonment shall take place only for crimes which deserve
corporal punishment. In any state of the process in which it
shall appear that such a punishment might not be imposed upon
the accused, he shall be set at liberty under bail. In no case
shall the imprisonment or detention be prolonged for default
of payment of fees, or of any furnishing of money whatever.
Article 19.
No detention shall exceed the term of three days, unless
justified by a writ showing cause of imprisonment and other
requisites which the law establishes. The mere lapse of this
term shall render responsible the authority that orders or
consents to it, and the agents, ministers, wardens, or jailers
who execute it. Any maltreatment in the apprehension or in the
confinement of the prisoners, any injury which may be
inflicted without legal ground, any tax or contribution in the
prisons, is an abuse which the laws must correct and the
authorities severally punish.
Article 20.
In every criminal trial the accused shall have the following
guarantees:
I. That the grounds of the proceedings and the name of the
accuser, if there shall be one, shall be made known to him.
II. That his preparatory declaration shall be taken within
forty-eight hours, counting from the time he may be placed at
the disposal of the judge.
III. That he shall be confronted with the witnesses who
testify against him.
IV. That he shall be furnished with the data which he requires
and which appear in the process, in order to prepare for his
defence.
V. That he shall be heard in defence by himself or by counsel,
or by both, as he may desire. In case he should have no one to
defend him, a list of official defenders shall be presented to
him, in order that he may choose one or more who may suit him.
Article 21.
The application of penalties properly so called belongs
exclusively to the judicial authority. The political or
administrative authorities may only impose fines, as
correction, to the extent of five hundred dollars, or
imprisonment to the extent of one month, in the cases and
manner which the law shall expressly determine.
Article 22.
Punishments by mutilation and infamy, by branding, flogging,
the bastinado, torture of whatever kind, excessive fines,
confiscation of property, or any other unusual or
extraordinary penalties, shall be forever prohibited.
Article 23.
In order to abolish the penalty of death, the administrative
power is charged to establish, as soon as possible, a
penitentiary system. In the meantime the penalty of death
shall be abolished for political offences, and shall not be
extended to other cases than treason during foreign war,
highway robbery, arson, parricide, homicide with treachery,
premeditation or advantage, to grave offences of the military
order, and piracy, which the law shall define.
Article 24.
No criminal proceeding may have more than three instances. No
one shall be tried twice for the same offence, whether by the
judgment he be absolved or condemned. The practice of
absolving from the instance is abolished.
Article 25.
Sealed correspondence which circulates by the mails is free
from all registry. The violation of this guarantee is an
offence which the law shall punish severely.
Article 26.
In time of peace no soldier may demand quarters, supplies, or
other real or personal service without the consent of the
proprietor. In time of war he shall do this only in the manner
prescribed by the law.
Article 27.
Private property shall not be appropriated without the consent
of the owner, except for the sake of public use, and with
previous indemnification. The law shall determine the
authority which may make the appropriation and the conditions
under which it may be carried out. No corporation, civil or
ecclesiastical, whatever may be its character, denomination,
or object, shall have legal capacity to acquire in
proprietorship or administer for itself real estate, with the
single exception of edifices destined immediately and directly
to the service and object of the institution.
[Footnote: See Article 3 of Additions to the Constitution.]
Article 28.
There shall be no monopolies, nor places of any kind for the
sale of privileged goods, nor prohibitions under titles of
protection to industry. There shall be excepted only those
relative to the coining of money, to the mails, and to the
privileges which, for a limited time, the law may concede to
inventors or perfectors of some improvement.
Article 29.
In cases of invasion, grave disturbance of the public peace,
or any other cases whatsoever which may place society in great
danger or conflict, only the President of the Republic in
concurrence with the Council of Ministers and with the
approbation of the Congress of the Union, and, in the recess
thereof, of the permanent deputation, may suspend the
guarantees established by this Constitution, with the
exception of those which assure the life of man; but such
suspension shall be made only for a limited time, by means of
general provisions, and without being limited to a determined
person. If the suspension should take place during the session
of Congress, this body shall concede the authorizations which
it may esteem necessary in order that the Executive may meet
properly the situation. If the suspension should take place
during the recess, the permanent deputation shall convoke the
Congress without delay in order that it may make the
authorizations.
Article 30.
Mexicans are--
I. All those born, within or without the Republic, of Mexican
parents.
II. Foreigners who are naturalized in conformity with the laws
of the Federation.
III. Foreigners who acquire real estate in the Republic or
have Mexican children; provided they do not manifest their
resolution to preserve their nationality.
Article 31.
It is an obligation of every Mexican--
I. To defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the
rights and interests of his country.
II. To contribute for the public expenses, as well of the
Federation as of the State and municipality in which he
resides, in the proportional and equitable manner which the
laws may provide.
{560}
Article 32.
Mexicans shall be preferred to foreigners in equal
circumstances, for all employments, charges, or commissions of
appointment by the authorities, in which the condition of
citizenship may not be indispensable. Laws shall be issued to
improve the condition of Mexican laborers, rewarding those who
distinguish themselves in any science or art, stimulating
labor, and founding practical colleges and schools of arts and
trades.
Article 33.
Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications
determined in Article 30. They have a right to the guarantees
established by ... [Articles 1-29] of the present
Constitution, except that in all cases the Government has the
right to expel pernicious foreigners. They are under
obligation to contribute to the public expenses in the manner
which the laws may provide, and to obey and respect the
institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, subjecting
themselves to the judgments and sentences of the tribunals,
without power to seek other protection than that which the
laws concede to Mexican citizens.
Article 34.
Citizens of the Republic are all those who, having the quality
of Mexicans, have also the following qualifications:
I. Eighteen years of age if married, or twenty-one if not
married.
II. An honest means of livelihood.
Article 35.
The prerogatives of the citizen are--
I. To vote at popular elections.
II. The privilege of being voted for for any office subject to
popular election, and of being selected for any other
employment or commission, having the qualifications
established by law.
III. To associate to discuss the political affairs of the
country.
IV. To take up arms in the army or in the national guard for
the defence of the Republic and its institutions.
V. To exercise in all cases the right of petition.
Article 36.
Every citizen of the Republic is under the following
obligations:
I. To be inscribed on the municipal roll, stating the property
which he has, or the industry, profession, or labor by which
he subsists.
II. To enlist in the national guard.
III. To vote at popular elections in the district to which he
belongs.
IV. To discharge the duties of the offices of popular election
of the Federation, which in no case shall be gratuitous.
Article 37.
The character of citizen is lost--
I. By naturalization in a foreign country.
II. By serving officially the government of another country or
accepting its decorations, titles, or employments without
previous permission from the Federal Congress; excepting
literary, scientific, and humanitarian titles, which may be
accepted freely.
Article 38.
The law shall prescribe the cases and the form in which may be
lost or suspended the rights of citizenship and the manner in
which they may be regained.
Article 39.
The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally in
the people. All public power emanates from the people, and is
instituted for their benefit. The people have at all times the
inalienable right to alter or modify the form of their
government.
Article 40.
The Mexican people voluntarily constitute themselves a
democratic, federal, representative republic, composed of
States free and sovereign in all that concerns their internal
government, but united in a federation established according
to the principles of this fundamental law.
Article 41.
The people exercise their sovereignty by means of Federal
officers in cases belonging to the Federation, and through
those of the States in all that relates to the internal
affairs of the States within the limits respectively
established by this Federal Constitution, and by the special
Constitutions of the States, which latter shall in no case
contravene the stipulations of the Federal Compact.
Article 42.
The National Territory comprises that of the integral parts of
the Federation and that of the adjacent islands in both
oceans.
Article 43.
The integral parts of the Federation are: the States of
Aguascalientes, Colima, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon
and Coahuila, Oajaca, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosi,
Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlascala, Valle de
Mexico, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas, and the Territory of
Lower California.
Article 44.
The States of Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,
Guerrero, Mexico, Puebla, Queretaro, Sinaloa, Sonora,
Tamaulipas, and the Territory of Lower California shall
preserve the limits which they now have.
Article 45.
The States of Colima and Tlascala shall preserve in their new
character of States the limits which they have had as
Territories of the Federation.
Article 46.
The State of the Valley of Mexico shall be formed of the
territory actually composing the Federal District, but the
erection into a State shall only have effect when the supreme
Federal authorities are removed to another place.
Article 47.
The State of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila shall comprise the
territory which has belonged to the two distinct States of
which it is now formed, except the part of the hacienda of
Bonanza, which shall be reincorporated in Zacatecas, on the
same terms in which it was before its incorporation in
Coahuila.
Article 48.
The States of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Oajaca, San Luis
Potosi, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan, and Zacatecas shall
recover the extension and limits which they had on the 31st of
December, 1852, with the alterations the following Article
establishes.
Article 49.
The town of Contepec, which has belonged to Guanajuato, shall
be incorporated in Michoacan. . The municipality of Ahualulco,
which has belonged to Zacatecas, shall be incorporated in San
Luis Potosi. The municipalities of Ojo-Caliente and San
Francisco de los Adames, which have belonged to San Luis, as
well as the towns of Nueva Tlascala and San Andres del Teul,
which have belonged to Jalisco, shall be incorporated in
Zacatecas. The department of Tuxpan shall continue to form a
part of Veracruz. The canton of Huimanguillo, which has
belonged to Veracruz, shall be incorporated in Tabasco.
[Footnote: Besides the twenty-four States which are mentioned
in this section there have been created subsequently,
according to executive decrees issued in accordance with the
Constitution, the four following:
XXV. That of Campeche, separated from Yucatan.
XXVI. That of Coahuila, separated from Nuevo Leon.
XXVII. That of Hidalgo, in territory of the ancient State
of Mexico, which formed the second military district.
XXVIII. That of Morelos, in territory also of the ancient
State of Mexico, which formed the third military district.]
{561}
Article 50.
The supreme power of the Federation is divided for its
exercise into legislative, executive, and judicial. Two or
more of these powers shall never be united in one person or
corporation, nor the legislative power be deposited in one
individual.
Article 51.
The legislative power of the nation is deposited in a general
Congress, which shall be divided into two houses, one of
Deputies and the other of Senators.
[Footnote: The original form of this article was as
follows: "The exercise of the supreme legislative power is
vested in one assembly, which shall be denominated Congress of
the Union."]
Article 52.
The House of Deputies shall be composed of representatives of
the nation, elected in their entire number every two years by
Mexican citizens.
Article 53.
One deputy shall be elected for each forty thousand
inhabitants, or for a fraction which exceeds twenty thousand.
The territory in which the population is less than that
determined in this article shall, nevertheless, elect one
deputy.
Article 54.
For each deputy there shall be elected one alternate.
Article 55.
The election for deputies shall be indirect in the first
degree, and by secret ballot, in the manner which the law
shall prescribe.
Article 56.
In order to be eligible to the position of a deputy it is
required that the candidate be a Mexican citizen in the
enjoyment of his rights; that he be fully twenty-five years of
age on the day of the opening of the session; that he be a
resident of the State or Territory which makes the election,
and that he be not an ecclesiastic. Residence is not lost by
absence in the discharge of any public trust bestowed by
popular election.
Article 57.
The positions of Deputy and of Senator are incompatible with
any Federal commission or office whatsoever for which a salary
is received.
Article 58.
The Deputies and the Senators from the day of their election
to the day on which their trust is concluded, may not accept
any commission or office offered by the Federal Executive, for
which a salary is received, except with the previous license
of the respective house. The same requisites are necessary for
the alternates of Deputies and Senators when in the exercise
of their functions.
A. The Senate is composed of two Senators for each State and
two for the Federal District. The election of Senators shall
be indirect in the first degree. The Legislature of each State
shall declare elected the person who shall have obtained the
absolute majority of the votes cast, or shall elect from among
those who shall have obtained the relative majority in the
manner which the electoral law shall prescribe. For each
Senator there shall be elected an alternate.
B. The Senate shall be renewed one-half every two years. The
Senators named in the second place shall go out at the end of
the first two years, and thereafter the half who have held
longer.
C. The same qualifications are required for a Senator as for a
Deputy, except that of age, which must be at least thirty
years on the day of the opening of the session.
Article 59.
The Deputies and Senators are privileged from arrest for their
opinions manifested in the performance of their duties, and
shall never be liable to be called to account for them.
Article 60.
Each house shall judge of the election of its members, and
shall solve the doubts which may arise regarding them.
Article 61.
The houses may not open their sessions nor perform their
functions without the presence in the Senate of at least
two-thirds, and in the House of Deputies of more than one-half
of the whole number of their members, but those present of one
or the other body must meet on the day indicated by the law
and compel the attendance of absent members under penalties
which the law shall designate.
Article 62.
The Congress shall have each year two periods of ordinary
sessions: the first, which may be prorogued for thirty days,
shall begin on the 16th of September and end on the 15th of
December, and the second, which may be prorogued for fifteen
days, shall begin the 1st of April and end the last day of
May.
Article 63.
At the opening of the sessions of the Congress the President
of the Union shall be present and shall pronounce a discourse
in which he shall set forth the state of the country. The
President of the Congress shall reply in general terms.
Article 64.
Every resolution of the Congress shall have the character of a
law or decree. The laws and decrees shall be communicated to
the Executive, signed by the Presidents of both houses and by
a Secretary of each of them, and shall be promulgated in this
form: "The Congress of the United States of Mexico decrees:"
(Text of the law or decree.)
Article 65.
The right to initiate laws or decrees belongs:
I. To the President of the Union.
II. To the Deputies and Senators of the general Congress.
III. To the Legislatures of the States.
Article 66.
Bills presented by the President of the Republic, by the
Legislatures of the States, or by deputations from the same,
shall pass immediately to a committee. Those which the
Deputies or the Senators may present shall be subjected to the
procedure which the rules of debate may prescribe.
Article 67.
Every bill which shall be rejected in the house where it
originated, before passing to the other house, shall not again
be presented during the sessions of that year.
Article 68.
The second period of sessions shall be destined, in all
preference, to the examination of and action upon the
estimates of the following fiscal year, to passing the
necessary appropriations to cover the same, and to the
examination of the accounts of the past year, which the
Executive shall present.
Article 69.
The last day but one of the first period of sessions the
Executive shall present to the House of Deputies the bill of
appropriations for the next year following and the accounts of
the preceding year. Both shall pass to a committee of five
Representatives appointed on the same day, which shall be
under obligation to examine said documents, and present a
report on them at the second session of the second period.
Article 70.
The formation of the laws and of the decrees may begin
indiscriminately in either of the two houses, with the
exception of bills which treat of loans, taxes, or imposts, or
of the recruiting of troops, all of which must be discussed
first in the House of Deputies.
{562}
Article 71.
Every bill, the consideration of which does not belong
exclusively to one of the houses, shall be discussed
successively in both, the rules of debate being observed with
reference to the form, the intervals, and manner of proceeding
in discussions and voting.
A. A bill having been approved in the house where it
originated, shall pass for its discussion to the other house.
If the latter body should approve it, it will be remitted to
the Executive, who, if he shall have no observations to make,
shall publish it immediately.
B. Every bill shall be considered as approved by the Executive
if not returned with observations to the house where it
originated within ten working days, unless during this term
Congress shall have closed or suspended its sessions, in which
case the return must be made the first working day on which it
shall meet.
C. A bill rejected wholly or in part by the Executive must be
returned with his observations to the house where it
originated. It shall be discussed again by this body, and if
it should be confirmed by an absolute majority of votes, it
shall pass again to the other house. If by this house it
should be sanctioned with the same majority, the bill shall be
a law or decree, and shall be returned to the Executive for
promulgation. The voting on the law or decree shall be by
name.
D. If any bill should be rejected wholly in the house in which
it did not originate, it shall be returned to that in which it
originated with the observations which the former shall have
made upon it. If having been examined anew it should be
approved by the absolute majority of the members present, it
shall be returned to the house which rejected it, which shall
again take it into consideration, and if it should approve it
by the same majority it shall pass to the Executive, to be
treated in accordance with division A; but, if it should
reject it, it shall not be presented again until the following
sessions.
E. If a bill should be rejected only in part, or modified, or
receive additions by the house of revision, the new discussion
in the house where it originated shall treat only of the
rejected part, or of the amendments or additions, without
being able to alter in any manner the articles approved. If
the additions or amendments made by the house of revision
should be approved by the absolute majority of the votes
present in the house where it originated, the whole bill shall
be passed to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with
division A. But if the additions or amendments made by the
house of revision should be rejected by the majority of the
votes in the house where it originated, they shall be returned
to the former, in order that the reasons of the latter may be
taken into consideration; and if by the absolute majority of
the votes present said additions or amendments shall be
rejected in this second revision, the bill, in so far as it
has been approved by both houses, shall be passed to the
Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A; but if
the house of revision should insist, by the absolute majority
of the votes present, on said additions or amendments, the
whole bill shall not be again presented until the following
sessions, unless both houses agree by the absolute majority of
their members present that the law or decree shall be issued
solely with the articles approved, and that the parts added or
amended shall be reserved to be examined and voted in the
following sessions.
F. In the interpretation, amendment, or repeal of the laws or
decrees, the rules established for their formation shall be
observed.
G. Both houses shall reside in the same place, and they shall
not remove to another without first agreeing to the removal
and on the time and manner of making it, designating the same
point for the meeting of both. But if both houses, agreeing to
the removal, should differ as to time, manner, or place, the
Executive shall terminate the difference by choosing one of
the places in question. Neither house shall suspend its
sessions for more than three days without the consent of the
other.
H. When the general Congress meets in extra sessions, it shall
occupy itself exclusively with the object or objects
designated in the summons; and if the special business shall
not have been completed on the day on which the regular
session should open, the extra sessions shall be closed
nevertheless, leaving the points pending to be treated of in
the regular sessions. The Executive of the Union shall not
make observations on the resolutions of the Congress when this
body prorogues its sessions or exercises functions of an
electoral body or a jury.
Article 72.
The Congress has power--
I. To admit new States or Territories into the Federal Union,
incorporating them in the nation.
II. To erect Territories into States when they shall have a
population of eighty thousand inhabitants and the necessary
elements to provide for their political existence.
III. To form new States within the limits of those existing,
it being necessary to this end--
1. That the fraction or fractions which asked to be erected
into a State shall number a population of at least one hundred
and twenty thousand inhabitants.
2. That it shall be proved before Congress that they have
elements sufficient to provide for their political existence.
3. That the Legislatures of the States, the territories of
which are in question, shall have been heard on the expediency
or inexpediency of the establishment of the new State, and
they shall be obliged to make their report within six months,
counted from the day on which the communication relating to it
shall have been remitted to them.
4. That the Executive of the Federation shall likewise be
heard, who shall send his report within seven days, counted
from the date on which he shall have been asked for it.
5. That the establishment of the new State shall have been
voted for by two-thirds of the Deputies and Senators present
in their respective houses.
6. That the resolution of Congress shall have been ratified by
the majority of the Legislatures of the States, after
examining a copy of the proceedings; provided that the
Legislatures of the States whose territory is in question
shall have given their consent.
7. If the Legislatures of the States whose territory is in
question shall not have given their consent, the ratification
mentioned in the preceding clause must be made by two-thirds
of the Legislatures of the other States.
A. The exclusive powers of the House of Deputies are--
I. To constitute itself an Electoral College in order to
exercise the powers which the law may assign to it, in respect
to the election of the Constitutional President of the
Republic, Magistrates of the Supreme Court, and Senators for
the Federal District.
II. To judge and decide upon the resignations which the
President of the Republic or the Magistrates of the Supreme
Court of Justice may make. The same power belongs to it in
treating of licenses solicited by the first.
III. To watch over, by means of an inspecting committee from
its own body, the exact performance of the business of the
chief auditorship.
IV. To appoint the principal officers and other employés of
the same.
V. To constitute itself a jury of accusation, for the high
functionaries of whom Article 103 of this Constitution treats.
VI. To examine the accounts which the Executive must present
annually, to approve the annual estimate of expenses, and to
initiate the taxes which in its judgment ought to be decreed
to cover these expenses.
{563}
B. The exclusive powers of the Senate are--
I. To approve the treaties and diplomatic conventions which
the Executive may make with foreign powers.
II. To ratify the appointments which the President of the
Republic may make of ministers, diplomatic agents,
consuls-general, superior employés of the Treasury,
colonels and other superior officers of the national army
and navy, on the terms which the law shall provide.
III. To authorize the Executive to permit the departure of
national troops beyond the limits of the Republic, the
passage of foreign troops through the national territory,
the station of squadrons of other powers for more than a
month in the waters of the Republic.
IV. To give its consent in order that the Executive may
dispose of the national guard outside of their respective
States or Territories, determining the necessary force.
V. To declare, when the Constitutional legislative and
executive powers of a State shall have disappeared, that
the case has arrived for appointing to it a provisional
Governor, who shall call elections in conformity with the
Constitutional laws of the said State. The appointment of
Governor shall be made by the Federal Executive with the
approval of the Senate, and in its recesses with the
approval of the Permanent Commission. Said functionary
shall not be elected Constitutional Governor at the
elections which are had in virtue of the summons which he
shall issue.
VI. To decide political questions which may arise between
the powers of a State, when any of them may appear with
this purpose in the Senate, or when on account of said
questions Constitutional order shall have been interrupted
during a conflict of arms. In this case the Senate shall
dictate its resolution, being subject to the general
Constitution of the Republic and to that of the State. The
law shall regulate the exercise of this power and that of
the preceding.
VII. To constitute itself a jury of judgment in accordance
with Article 105 of this Constitution.
C. Each of the houses may, without the intervention of the
other--
I. Dictate economic resolutions relative to its internal
regimen.
II. Communicate within itself, and with the Executive of
the Union, by means of committees from its own body.
III. Appoint the employés of its secretaryship, and make
the internal regulations for the same.
IV. Issue summons for extraordinary elections, with the
object of filling the vacancies of their respective
members.
IV. To regulate definitely the limits of the States,
terminating the differences which may arise between them
relative to the demarcation of their respective
territories, except when these difficulties have a
contentious character.
V. To change the residence of the supreme powers of the
Federation.
VI. To establish the internal order of the Federal District
and Territories, taking as a basis that the citizens shall
choose by popular election the political, municipal, and
judicial authorities, and designating the taxes necessary
to cover their local expenditure.
VII. To approve the estimates of the Federal expenditure,
which the Executive must annually present to it, and to
impose the necessary taxes to cover them.
VIII. To give rules under which the Executive may make
loans on the credit of the nation; to approve said loans,
and to recognize and order the payment of the national
debt.
IX. To establish tariffs on foreign commerce, and to
prevent, by means of general laws, onerous restrictions
from being established with reference to the commerce
between the States.
X. To issue codes, obligatory throughout the Republic, of
mines and commerce, comprehending in this last banking
institutions.
XI. To create and suppress public Federal employments and
to establish, augment, or diminish their salaries.
XII. To ratify the appointments which the Executive may
make of ministers, diplomatic agents, and consuls, of the
higher employés of the Treasury, of the colonels and other
superior officers of the national army and navy.
XIII. To approve the treaties, contracts, or diplomatic
conventions which the Executive may make.
XIV. To declare war in view of the data which the Executive
may present to it.
XV. To regulate the manner in which letters of marque may
be issued; to dictate laws according to which must be
declared good or bad the prizes on sea and land, and to
issue laws relating to maritime rights in peace and war.
XVI. To permit or deny the entrance of foreign troops into
the territory of the Republic, and to consent to the
station of squadrons of other powers for more than a month
in the waters of the Republic.
XVII. To permit the departure of national troops beyond the
limits of the Republic.
[Footnote: Amended by Section B, Clause III., Article 72,
of the law of the 13th of November, 1874.]
XVIII. To raise and maintain the army and navy of the
Union, and to regulate their organization and service.
XIX. To establish regulations with the purpose of
organizing, arming, and disciplining the national guard,
reserving respectively to the citizens who compose it the
appointment of the commanders and officers, and to the
States the power of instructing it in conformity with the
discipline prescribed by said regulations.
XX. To give its consent in order that the Executive may
control the national guard outside of its respective States
and Territories, determining the necessary force.
XXI. To dictate laws on naturalization, colonization, and
citizenship.
XXII. To dictate laws on the general means of communication
and on the post-office and mails.
XXIII. To establish mints, fixing the conditions of their
operation, to determine the value of foreign money, and
adopt a general system of weights and measures.
XXIV. To fix rules to which must be subject the occupation
and sale of public lands and the price of these lands.
XXV. To grant pardons for crimes cognizable by the
tribunals of the Federation.
XXVI. To grant rewards or recompense for eminent services
rendered to the country or humanity.
XXVII. To prorogue for thirty working days the first period
of its ordinary sessions.
XXVIII. To form rules for its internal regulation, to take
the necessary measures to compel the attendance of absent
members, and to correct the faults or omissions of those
present.
XXIX. To appoint and remove freely the employés of its
secretaryship and those of the chief auditorship, which
shall be organized in accordance with the provisions of the
law.
XXX. To make all laws which may be necessary and proper to
render effective the foregoing powers and all others
granted by this Constitution and the authorities of the
Union.
[Footnote: See respecting this Article the additions A, B,
and C to Article 72 of the law of the 13th of November,
already cited.]
{564}
Article 73.
During the recess of Congress there shall be a Permanent
Deputation composed of twenty-nine members, of whom fifteen
shall be Deputies and fourteen Senators, appointed by their
respective houses the evening before the close of the
sessions.
Article 74.
The attributes of the Permanent Deputation are--
I. To give its consent to the use of the national guard in the
cases mentioned in Article 72, Clause XX.
II. To determine by itself, or on the proposal of the
Executive, after hearing him in the first place, the summons
of Congress, or of one house alone, for extra sessions, the
vote of two-thirds of the members present being necessary in
both cases. The summons shall designate the object or objects
of the extra sessions.
III. To approve the appointments which are referred to in
Article 85, Clause III.
IV. To administer the oath of office to the President of the
Republic, and to the Justices of the Supreme Court, in the
cases provided by this Constitution.
[Footnote: See the Amendment of September 25, 1873,
Article 4.]
V. To report upon all the business not disposed of, in order
that the Legislature which follows may immediately take up
such unfinished business.
Article 75.
The exercise of the supreme executive power of the Union is
vested in a single individual, who shall be called "President
of the United States of Mexico."
Article 76.
The election of President shall be indirect in the first
degree, and by secret ballot, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the electoral law.
Article 77.
To be eligible to the position of President, the candidate
must be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his
rights, be fully thirty-five years old at the time of the
election, not belong to the ecclesiastical order, and reside
in the country at the time the election is held.
Article 78.
The President shall enter upon the performance of the duties
of his office on the first of December, and shall continue in
office four years, being eligible for the Constitutional
period immediately following; but he shall remain incapable
thereafter to occupy the presidency by a new election until
four years shall have passed, counting from the day on which
he ceased to perform his functions.
Article 79.
In the temporary default of the President of the Republic, and
in the vacancy before the installation of the newly-elected
President, the citizen who may have performed the duties of
President or Vice-President of the Senate, or of the Permanent
Commission in the periods of recess, during the month prior to
that in which said default may have occurred, shall enter upon
the exercise of the executive power of the Union.
A. The President and Vice-President of the Senate and of the
Permanent Commission shall not be reëlected to those offices
until a year after having held them.
B. If the period of sessions of the Senate or of the Permanent
Commission shall begin in the second half of a month, the
default of the President of the Republic shall be covered by
the President or Vice-President who may have acted in the
Senate or in the Permanent Commission during the first half of
the said month.
C. The Senate and the Permanent Commission shall renew, the
last day of each month, their Presidents and Vice-Presidents.
For these offices the Permanent Commission shall elect,
alternatively, in one month two Deputies and in the following
month two Senators.
D. When the office of President of the Republic is vacant, the
functionary who shall take it constitutionally as his
substitute must issue, within the definite term of fifteen
days, the summons to proceed to a new election, which shall be
held within the term of three months, and in accordance with
the provisions of Article 76 of this Constitution. The
provisional President shall not be eligible to the presidency
at the elections which are held to put an end to his
provisional term.
E. If, on account of death or any other reason, the
functionaries who, according to this law, should take the
place of the President of the Republic, might not be able in
any absolute manner to do so, it shall be taken, under
predetermined conditions, by the citizen who may have been
President or Vice-President of the Senate or the Permanent
Commission in the month prior to that in which they discharged
those offices.
F. When the office of President of the Republic shall become
vacant within the last six months of the constitutional
period, the functionary who shall take the place of the
President shall terminate this period.
G. To be eligible to the position of President or
Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission,
one must be a Mexican citizen by birth.
H. If the vacancy in the office of President of the Republic
should occur when the Senate and Permanent Commission are
performing their functions in extra sessions, the President of
the Commission shall fill the vacancy, under conditions
indicated in this article.
I. The Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent
Commission shall enter upon the performance of the functions
which this Article confers upon them, in the vacancies of the
office of President of the Senate or of the Permanent
Commission, and in the periods only while the impediment
lasts.
J. The newly-elected President shall enter upon the discharge
of his duties, at the latest, sixty days after that of the
election. In case the House of Deputies shall not be in
session, it shall be convened in extra session, in order to
make the computation of votes within the term mentioned.
Article 80.
In the vacancy of the office of President, the period of the
newly-elected President shall be computed from the first of
December of the year prior to that of his election, provided
he may not have taken possession of his office on the date
which Article 78 determines.
Article 81.
The office of President of the Union may not be resigned,
except for grave cause, approved by Congress, before whom the
resignation shall be presented.
Article 82.
If for any reason the election of President shall not have
been made and published by the first of December, on which the
transfer of the office should be made, or the President-elect
shall not have been ready to enter upon the discharge of his
duties, the term of the former President shall end
nevertheless, and the supreme executive power shall be
deposited provisionally in the functionary to whom it belongs
according to the provisions of the reformed Article 79 of this
Constitution.
{565}
Article 83.
The President, on taking possession of his office, shall take
an oath before Congress, and in its recess before the
Permanent Commission, under the following formula: "I swear to
perform loyally and patriotically the duties of President of
the United States of Mexico, according to the Constitution,
and seek in everything for the welfare and prosperity of the
Union."
[Footnote: See the Amendments and Additions of September 25,
1873.]
Article 84.
The President may not remove from the place of the residence
of the Federal powers, nor lay aside the exercise of his
functions, without grave cause, approved by the Congress, and
in its recesses by the Permanent Commission.
Article 85.
The powers and obligations of the President are the following:
I. To promulgate and execute the laws passed by the Congress
of the Union, providing, in the administrative sphere, for
their exact observance.
II. To appoint and remove freely the Secretaries of the
Cabinet, to remove the diplomatic agents and superior employés
of the Treasury, and to appoint and remove freely the other
employés of the Union whose appointment and removal are not
otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in the laws.
III. To appoint ministers, diplomatic agents, consuls-general,
with the approval of Congress, and, in its recess, of the
Permanent Commission.
IV. To appoint, with the approval of Congress, the colonels
and other superior officers of the national army and navy, and
the superior employés of the treasury.
V. To appoint the other officers of the national army and
navy, according to the laws.
VI. To control the permanent armed force by sea and land for
the internal security and external defence of the Federation.
VII. To control the national guard for the same objects within
the limits established by Article 72, Clause XX.
VIII. To declare war in the name of the United States of
Mexico, after the passage of the necessary law by the Congress
of the Union.
IX. To grant letters of marque, subject to bases fixed by the
Congress.
X. To direct diplomatic negotiations and make treaties with
foreign powers, submitting them for the ratification of the
Federal Congress.
XI. To receive ministers and other envoys from foreign powers.
XII. To convoke Congress in extra sessions when the Permanent
Commission shall consent to it.
XIII. To furnish the judicial power with that assistance which
may be necessary for the prompt exercise of its functions.
XIV. To open all classes of ports, to establish maritime and
frontier custom-houses and designate their situation.
XV. To grant, in accordance with the laws, pardons to
criminals sentenced for crimes within the jurisdiction of the
Federal tribunals.
XVI. To grant exclusive privileges, for a limited time and
according to the proper law, to discoverers, inventors, or
perfecters of any branch of industry.
Article 86.
For the dispatch of the business of the administrative
department of the Federation there shall be the number of
Secretaries which the Congress may establish by a law, which
shall provide for the distribution of business and prescribe
what shall be in charge of each Secretary.
Article 87.
To be a Secretary of the Cabinet it is required that one shall
be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights,
and fully twenty-five years old.
Article 88.
All the regulations, decrees, and orders of the President must
be signed by the Secretary of the Cabinet who is in charge of
the department to which the subject belongs. Without this
requisite they shall not be obeyed.
Article 89.
The Secretaries of the Cabinet, as soon as the sessions of the
first period shall be opened, shall render an account to the
Congress of the state of their respective departments.
Article 90.
The exercise of the judicial power of the Federation is vested
in a Supreme Court of Justice and in the district and circuit
courts.
Article 91.
The Supreme Court of Justice shall be composed of eleven
judges, four supernumeraries, one fiscal, and one
attorney-general.
Article 92.
Each of the members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall
remain in office six years, and his election shall be indirect
in the first degree, under conditions established by the
electoral law.
Article 93.
In order to be elected a member of the Supreme Court of
Justice it is necessary that one be learned in the science of
the law in the judgment of the electors, more than thirty-five
years old, and a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of
his rights.
Article 94.
The members of the Supreme Court of Justice, on entering upon
the exercise of their charge, shall take an oath before
Congress, and, in its recesses, before the Permanent
Commission, in the following form: "Do you swear to perform
loyally and patriotically the charge of Magistrate of the
Supreme Court of Justice, which the people have conferred upon
you in conformity with the Constitution, seeking in everything
the welfare and prosperity of the Union?"
[Footnote: See Additions to the Constitution,
September 25, 1873. ]
Article 95.
A member of the Supreme Court of Justice may resign his office
only for grave cause, approved by the Congress, to whom the
resignation shall be presented. In the recesses of the
Congress the judgment shall be rendered by the Permanent
Commission.
Article 96.
The law shall establish and organize the circuit and district
courts.
Article 97.
It belongs to the Federal tribunals to take cognizance of--
I. All controversies which may arise in regard to the
fulfilment and application of the Federal laws, except in the
case in which the application affects only private interests;
such a case falls within the competence of the local judges
and tribunals of the common order of the States, of the
Federal District, and of the Territory of Lower California.
II. All cases pertaining to maritime law.
III. Those in which the Federation may be a party.
IV. Those that may arise between two or more States.
V. Those that may arise between a State and one or more
citizens of another State.
VI. Civil or criminal cases that may arise under treaties with
foreign powers.
VII. Cases concerning diplomatic agents and consuls..
Article 98.
It belongs to the Supreme Court of Justice, in the first
instance, to take cognizance of controversies which may arise
between one State and another, and of those in which the Union
may be a party.
Article 99.
It belongs also to the Supreme Court of Justice to determine
the questions of jurisdiction which may arise between the
Federal tribunals, between these and those of the States, or
between the courts of one State and those of another.
Article 100.
In the other cases comprehended in Article 97, the Supreme
Court of Justice shall be a court of appeal or, rather, of
last resort, according to the graduation which the law may
make in the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts.
{566}
Article 101.
The tribunals of the Federation shall decide all questions
which arise--
I. Under laws or acts of whatever authority which violate
individual guarantees.
II. Under laws or acts of the State authority which violate or
restrain the sovereignty of the States.
III. Under laws or acts of the State authority which invade
the sphere of the Federal authority.
Article 102.
All the judgments which the preceding article mentions shall
be had on petition of the aggrieved party, by means of
judicial proceedings and forms which shall be prescribed by
law. The sentence shall be always such as to affect private
individuals only, limiting itself to defend and protect them
in the special case to which the process refers, without
making any general declaration respecting the law or act which
gave rise to it.
Article 103.
The Senators, the Deputies, the members of the Supreme Court
of Justice, and the Secretaries of the Cabinet are responsible
for the common crimes which they may commit during their terms
of office, and for the crimes, misdemeanors, and negligence
into which they may fall in the performance of the duties of
said office. The Governors of the States are likewise
responsible for the infraction of the Constitution and Federal
laws. The President of the Republic is also responsible; but
during the term of his office he may be accused only for the
crimes of treason against the country, express violation of
the Constitution, attack on the freedom of election, and grave
crimes of the common order. The high functionaries of the
Federation shall not enjoy any Constitutional privilege for
the official crimes, misdemeanors, or negligence into which
they may fall in the performance of any employment, office, or
public commission which they may have accepted during the
period for which, in conformity with the law, they shall have
been elected. The same shall happen with respect to those
common crimes which they may commit during the performance of
said employment, office, or commission. In order that the
cause may be initiated when the high functionary shall have
returned to the exercise of his proper functions, proceeding
should be undertaken in accordance with the provision of
Article 104 of this Constitution.
Article 104.
If the crime should be a common one, the House of
Representatives, formed into a grand jury, shall declare, by
an absolute majority of votes, whether there is or is not
ground to proceed against the accused. In the negative case,
there shall be no ground for further proceedings; in the
affirmative, the accused shall be, by the said act, deprived
of his office, and subjected to the action of the ordinary
tribunals.
Article 105.
The houses shall take cognizance of official crimes, the House
of Deputies as a jury of accusation, the Senators as a jury of
judgment. The jury of accusation shall have for its object to
declare, by an absolute majority of votes, whether the accused
is or is not culpable. If the declaration should be
absolutory, the functionary shall continue in the exercise of
his office; if it should be condemnatory, he shall be
immediately deprived of his office, and shall be placed at the
disposal of the Senate. The latter, formed into a jury of
judgment, and, with the presence of the criminal and of the
accuser, if there should be one, shall proceed to apply, by an
absolute majority of votes, the punishment which the law
designates.
Article 106.
A judgment of responsibility for official crimes having been
pronounced, no favor of pardon may be extended to the
offender.
Article 107.
The responsibility for official crimes and misdemeanors may be
required only during the period in which the functionary
remains in office, and one year thereafter.
Article 108.
With respect to demands of the Civil order, there shall be no
privilege or immunity for any public functionary.
Article 109.
The States shall adopt for their internal regimen the popular,
representative, republican form of government, and may provide
in their respective Constitutions for the reelection of the
Governors in accordance with what Article 78 provides for the
President of the Republic.
Article 110.
The States may regulate among themselves, by friendly
agreements, their respective boundaries; but those regulations
shall not be carried into effect without the approval of the
Congress of the Union.
Article 111.
The States may not in any case--
1. Form alliances, treaties, or coalitions with another State,
or with foreign powers, excepting the coalition which the
frontier States may make for offensive or defensive war
against the Indians.
II. Grant letters of marque or reprisal.
III. Coin money, or emit paper money or stamped paper.
Article 112.
Neither may any State, without the consent of the Congress of
the Union:
I. Establish tonnage duties, or any port duty, or impose taxes
or duties upon importations or exportations.
II. Have at any time permanent troops or vessels of war,
III. Make war by itself on any foreign power except in cases
of invasion or of such imminent peril as to admit of no delay.
In these cases the State shall give notice immediately to the
President of the Republic.
Article 113.
Each State is under obligation to deliver without delay the
criminals of other States to the authority that claims them.
Article 114.
The Governors of the States are obliged to publish and cause
to be obeyed the Federal laws.
Article 115.
In each State of the Federation entire faith and credit shall
be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings
of all the other States. The Congress may, by means of general
laws, prescribe the manner of proving said acts, records, and
proceedings, and the effect thereof.
Article 116.
The powers of the Union are bound to protect the States
against all invasion or external violence. In case of
insurrection or internal disturbance they shall give them like
protection, provided the Legislature of the State, or the
Executive, if the Legislature is not in session, shall request
it.
Article 117.
The powers which are not expressly granted by this
Constitution to the Federal authorities are understood to be
reserved to the States.
Article 118.
No person may at the same time hold two Federal elective
offices; but if elected to two, he may choose which of them he
will fill.
Article 119.
No payment shall be made which is not comprehended in the
budget or determined by a subsequent law.
Article 120.
The President of the Republic, the members of the Supreme
Court of Justice, the Deputies, and other public officers of
the Federation, who are chosen by popular election, shall
receive a compensation for their services, which shall be
determined by law and paid by the Federal Treasury. This
compensation may not be renounced, and any law which augments
or diminishes it shall not have effect during the period for
which a functionary holds the office.
{567}
Article 121.
Every public officer, without any exception, before taking
possession of his office, shall take an oath to maintain this
Constitution and the laws which emanate from it.
[Footnote: See the Additions of September 25, 1873.]
Article 122.
In time of peace no military authority may exercise more
functions than those which have close connection with military
discipline. There shall be fixed and permanent military
commands only in the castles, fortresses, and magazines which
are immediately under the government of the Union; or in
encampments, barracks, or depots which may be established
outside of towns for stationing troops.
Article 123.
It belongs exclusively to the Federal authorities to exercise,
in matters of religious worship and external discipline, the
intervention which the laws may designate.
Article 124.
The States shall not impose any duty for the simple passage of
goods in the internal commerce. The Government of the Union
alone may decree transit duties, but only with respect to
foreign goods which cross the country by international or
interoceanic lines, without being on the national territory
more time than is necessary to traverse it and depart to the
foreign country. They shall not prohibit, either directly or
indirectly, the entrance to their territory, or the departure
from it, of any merchandise, except on police grounds; nor
burden the articles of national production on their departure
for a foreign country or for another State. The exemptions
from duties which they concede shall be general; they may not
be decreed in favor of the products of specified origin. The
quota of the import for a given amount of merchandise shall be
the same, whatever may have been its origin, and no heavier
burden may be assigned to it than that which the similar
products of the political entity in which the import is
decreed bear. The national merchandise shall not be submitted
to definite route nor to inspection or registry on the ways,
nor any fiscal document be demanded for its internal
circulation. Nor shall they burden foreign merchandise with a
greater quota than that which may have been permitted them by
the Federal law to receive.
Article 125.
The forts, military quarters, magazines, and other edifices
necessary to the government of the Union shall be under the
immediate inspection of the Federal authorities.
Article 126.
This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union which
emanate from it, and all the treaties made or which shall be
made by the President of the Republic, with the approval of
Congress, shall be the supreme law of the whole Union. The
judges of each State shall be guided by said Constitution,
law, and treaties in spite of provisions to the contrary which
may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States.
Article 127.
The present Constitution may be added to or reformed. In order
that additions or alterations may become part of the
Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union,
by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, shall agree to
the alterations or additions, and that these shall be approved
by the majority of the Legislatures of the States. The
Congress of the Union shall count the votes of the
Legislatures and make the declaration that the reforms or
additions have been approved.
Article 128.
This Constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even if
its observance be interrupted by a rebellion. In case that by
any public disturbance a government contrary to the principles
which it sanctions shall be established, as soon as the people
recover their liberty its observance shall be reestablished,
and in accordance with it and the laws which shall have been
issued in virtue of it, shall be judged not only those who
shall have figured in the government emanating from the
rebellion, but also those who shall have cooperated with it.
Additions.
Article 1.
The State and the Church are independent of one another. The
Congress may not pass laws establishing or prohibiting any
religion.
Article 2.
Marriage is a civil contract. This and the other acts relating
to the civil state of persons belong to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the functionaries and authorities of the civil
order, within limits provided by the laws, and they shall have
the force and validity which the same attribute to them.
Article 3.
No religious institution may acquire real estate or capital
fixed upon it, with the single exception established in
Article 27 of this Constitution.
Article 4.
The simple promise to speak the truth and to comply with the
obligations which have been incurred, shall be substituted for
the religious oath, with its effects and penalties.
----------CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF NETHERLANDS KINGDOM.
After 1830, this became the Kingdom of Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1830-1884.
----------NETHERLANDS: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
"On May 17, 1814, ... a constitution was granted to Norway.
The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which
almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up
in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of
November 1814."
C. F. Keary, Norway and the Norwegians, chapter 13.
The following the text of the constitution as granted in 1814:
Title I.
Article 1.
The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, undivisible, and
inalienable state, united to Sweden under the same king. The
form of its government is limited, hereditary, and
monarchical.
{568}
Article 2.
The Lutheran evangelical religion shall continue to be the
ruling religion of the kingdom; those of the inhabitants which
profess it are bound to bring up their children in its tenets;
Jesuits and monastic orders shall not be prohibited in the
kingdom. The admission of Jews into the kingdom shall always
be, as formerly, prohibited.
Title II.
Article 1.
The executive power is declared to be in the person of the
king.
Article 2.
The king shall always profess the evangelical Lutheran
religion, which he shall maintain and protect.
Article 3.
The person of the king is sacred: he can neither be blamed or
accused.
Article 4.
The succession is lineal, and collateral, such as it is
determined by the order of succession decreed by the general
estates of Sweden, and sanctioned by the king in the Act of
the 26th September 1810, of which a translation is annexed to
this Constitution. Of the number of legitimate heirs, is
comprehended the child in its mother's womb, which, as soon as
it shall be born, after the death of its father, takes the
place which is due to him in the line of succession. When a
Prince, heir of the re-united crowns of Norway and Sweden,
shall be born, his name, and the day of his birth shall be
announced at the first Storthing, and inscribed in the
registers.
Article 5.
Should there not be found any prince, a legitimate heir to the
throne, the king can propose his successor at the Storthing of
Norway, and at the same time to the states general of Sweden.
As soon as the king shall have made the proposition, the
representatives of the two nations shall choose from among
them a committee, invested with the right of determining the
election, in case the king's proposition should not, by the
plurality of voices, be approved of separately by the
representatives of each of the countries. The number of
members of this committee, shall be composed of an equal
number of Norwegians and Swedes, so that the step to follow in
the election shall be regulated by a law which the king shall
propose at the same time to the next Storthing, and the states
general of Sweden. They shall draw by lot one out of the
committee for its member.
Article 6.
The Storthing of Norway, and the states general of Sweden
shall concert to fix by a law the king's majority; if they
cannot agree, a committee, taken from the representatives of
the two nations, shall decide it in the manner established by
article 5th, title 2nd. As soon as the king shall have
attained the years of majority fixed by the law, he shall
publicly declare that he is of age.
[Footnote: Storthing is the national assembly, or general
estates of the kingdom.]
[Footnote: A law of the Storthing, 13th July 1815, and
sanctioned by the king, declared that the king is major on
arriving at the age of eighteen years.]
Article 7.
When the king comes of age he shall take into his hands the
reins of government, and make the following oath to the
Storthing: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern the
kingdom of Norway conformably to its constitution and laws."
If the Storthing is not then assembled, this oath shall be
deposited in writing in the council, and solemnly repeated by
the king at the first Storthing, either vivâ voce or by
writing, by the person whom he shall have appointed to this
effect.
Article 8.
The coronation of the king shall take place when he is of age,
in the cathedral of Drontheim, at the time and with those
ceremonies that shall be fixed by himself.
Article 9.
The King shall pass some time in Norway yearly, unless this is
prevented by urgent circumstances.
Article 10.
The king shall exclusively choose a council of Norwegians,
citizens, who shall have attained the seventieth year of their
age. This council shall be composed at least of a minister of
state, and seven other members. In like manner the king can
create a viceroy or a government. The king shall arrange the
affairs between the members of the council, in such manner as
he shall consider expedient. Besides these ordinary members of
council, the king, or in his absence the viceroy (or the
government jointly with the ordinary members of council) may
on particular occasions, call other Norwegians, citizens, to
sit there, provided they are not members of the Storthing. The
father and son, or two brothers, shall not, at the same time,
have a seat in the council.
Article 11.
The king shall appoint a governor of the kingdom in his
absence, and on failure it shall be governed by the viceroy or
a governor, with five at least of the members of council. They
shall govern the kingdom in the name and behalf of the king;
and they shall observe inviolably, as much the principles
contained in this fundamental law as those relative precepts
the king shall lay down in his instructions. They shall make a
humble report to the king upon those affairs they have
decided. All matters shall be decided by plurality of votes.
If the votes happen to be equal, the viceroy or governor, or
in their absence the first member of council, shall have two.
Article 12.
The prince royal or his eldest son can be viceroy; but this
can only occur when they have attained the majority of the
king. In the case of a governor, either a Norwegian or a Swede
may be nominated. The viceroy shall remain in the kingdom, and
shall not be allowed to reside in a foreign one beyond three
months each year. When the king shall be present, the
viceroy's functions shall cease. If there is no viceroy, but
only a governor, the functions of the latter shall also cease,
in which event he is only the first member of council.
Article 13.
During the residence of the king in Sweden, he shall always
have near him the minister of state of Norway, and two of the
members of the Norwegian council, when they shall be annually
changed. These are charged with similar duties, and the same
constitutional responsibility attaches to them as to the
sitting council in Norway; and it is only in their presence
that state affairs shall be decided by the king. All petitions
addressed to the king by Norwegian citizens ought, first, to
be transmitted to the Norwegian council, that they may be duly
considered previously to decisions being pronounced. In
general, no affairs ought to be decided before the council has
expressed an opinion, in case it should be met with important
objections. The minister of state of Norway ought to report
the affairs, and he shall be responsible for expedition in the
resolutions which shall have been taken.
Article 14.
The king shall regulate public worship and its rites, as well
as all assemblies that have religion for their object, so that
ministers of religion may observe their forms prescribed to
them.
{569}
Article 15.
The king can give and abolish ordinances which respect
commerce, the custom-house, manufactures, and police. They
shall not, however, be contrary to the constitution nor the
laws adopted by the Storthing. They shall have provisional
force until the next Storthing.
Article 16.
The king shall in general regulate the taxes imposed by the
Storthing. The public treasurer of Norway shall remain in
Norway, and the revenues shall only be employed towards the
expenses of Norway.
Article 17.
The king shall superintend the manner in which the domains and
crown property of the state are employed and governed, in the
manner fixed by the Storthing, and which shall be most
advantageous to the country.
Article 18.
The king in council has the right to pardon criminals when the
supreme tribunal has pronounced its opinion. The criminal has
the choice of receiving pardon from the king or of submitting
to the punishment to which he is condemned. In the causes
which the Odelsthing would have ordered to be carried to the
Rigsret, there can be no other pardon but that which shall
liberate from a capital punishment.
Article 19.
The king, after having heard his Norwegian council, shall
dispose of all the civil, ecclesiastic, and military
employments. Those who assist in the functions shall swear
obedience and fidelity to the constitution and to the king.
The princes of the royal family cannot be invested with any
civil employment; yet the prince royal, or his eldest son, may
be nominated viceroy.
Article 20.
The governor of the kingdom, the minister of state, other
members of council, and those employed in the functions
connected with these offices, the envoys and consuls, superior
magistrates, civil and ecclesiastic commanders of regiments,
and other military bodies, governors of fortresses, and
commanders-in-chief of ships of war, shall, without previous
arrest, be deposed by the king and his Norwegian council. As
to the pension to be granted to those employed they shall be
decided by the first Storthing. In the mean time, they shall
enjoy two-third parts of their former salary. The others
employed can only be suspended by the king, and they shall
afterwards be brought before the tribunals, but cannot be
deposed excepting by order of an arrest, and the king cannot
make them change their situations contrary to their will.
Article 21.
The king can confer orders of knighthood on whomsoever he
chooses, in reward of distinguished services, which shall be
published; but he can confer no other rank, with the title,
than that which is attached to every employment. An order of
knighthood does not liberate the person on whom it is
conferred from those duties common to all citizens, and
particular titles are not conferred in order to obtain
situations in the state. Such persons shall preserve the title
and rank attached to those situations which they have
occupied. No person can, for the future, obtain personal,
mixed, or hereditary privileges.
Article 22.
The king elects and dismisses, whenever he thinks proper, all
the officers attached to his court.
Article 23.
The king is commander-in-chief of all the forces, by sea and
land, in the kingdom, and these cannot be increased or
diminished without the consent of the Storthing. They will not
be ceded to the service of any foreign power, and troops
belonging to a foreign power (except auxiliary troops in case
of a hostile invasion,) cannot enter the country without the
consent of the Storthing. During peace, the Norwegian troops
shall be stationed in Norway, and not in Sweden.
Notwithstanding this the king may have in Sweden a Norwegian
guard, composed of volunteers, and may for a short time, not
exceeding six weeks in a year, assemble troops in the environs
of the two countries, for exercising; but in case there are
more than 3,000 men, composing the army of one of the two
countries, they cannot in time of peace enter the other.
[Footnote: The law of the Storthing, 5th July 1816, bears,
that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the frontiers
of the kingdom, and the interpretation given by it to that law
is, that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the
frontiers of the two kingdoms.]
The Norwegian army and gun-boats shall not be employed without
the consent of the Storthing. The Norwegian fleet shall have
dry docks, and during peace its stations and harbours in
Norway. Ships of war of both countries shall be supplied with
the seamen of the other, so long as they shall voluntarily
engage to serve. The landwehr, and other Norwegian forces,
which are not calculated among the number of troops, of the
line, shall never be employed beyond the frontiers of the
kingdom of Norway.
Article 24.
The king has the right of assembling troops, commencing war,
making peace, concluding and dissolving treaties, sending
ministers to, and receiving those of, foreign courts. When he
begins war he ought to advise the council of Norway, consult
it, and order it to prepare an address on the state of the
kingdom, relative to its finances, and proper means of
defence. On this the king shall convoke the minister of state
of Norway, and those of the council of Sweden, at an
extraordinary assembly, when he shall explain all those
relative circumstances that ought to be taken into
consideration; with a representation of the Norwegian council,
and a similar one on the part of Sweden, upon the state of the
kingdom, shall then be presented. The king shall then require
advice upon these objects; and each shall be inserted in a
register, under the responsibility imposed by the
constitution, when the king shall then adopt that resolution
which he judges most, proper for the benefit of the state.
Article 25.
On this occasion all the members of council must be present,
if not prevented by some lawful cause, and no resolution ought
to be adopted unless one half of the members are present. In
Norwegian affairs, which, according to the fifteenth article,
are decided in Sweden, no resolution shall be taken unless the
minister of state of Norway and one of the members of council,
or two members, are present.
Article 26.
The representations respecting employments, and other
important acts, excepting those of a diplomatic and military
nature, properly so called, shall be referred to the council
by him who is one of the members in the department charged
with it, who shall accordingly draw up the resolution adopted
in council.
Article 27.
If any member of council is prevented from appearing, and
referring the affairs which belong to his peculiar department,
he shall be replaced in this office by one of the others
appointed to this purpose, either by the king, if personally
present, and if not, by him who has precedence in the council,
jointly with the other members composing it. Should several of
these be prevented from appearing, so that only one half of
the ordinary number is present, the other employed in the
offices shall in like manner have right to sit in council; and
in that event it shall be afterwards referred to the king, who
decides if they ought to continue to exercise this office.
{570}
Article 28.
The council shall keep a register of all affairs that may come
under its consideration. Every individual who sits in it shall
be at liberty to give his opinion freely, which the king is
obliged to hear; but it is reserved to his majesty to adopt
resolutions after he has consulted his own mind. If a member
of council finds that the king's resolution is contrary to the
form of government, the laws of the kingdom, or injurious to
the state, he shall consider it his duty to oppose it, and
record his opinion in the register accordingly; but he who
remains silent shall be presumed to have agreed with the king,
and shall be responsible for it, even in the case of being
referred to at a future period; and the Odelsthing is
empowered to bring him before the Rigsret.
Article 29.
All the orders issued by the king (military affairs excepted)
shall be countersigned by the Norwegian minister of state.
Article 30.
Resolutions made in absence of the king, by the council in
Norway, shall be publicly proclaimed and signed by the
viceroy, or the governor and council, and countersigned by him
who shall have referred them, and he is further responsible
for the accuracy and dispatch with the register in which the
resolution is entered.
Article 31.
All representations relative to the affairs of this country,
as well as writings concerning them, must be in the Norwegian
language.
Article 32.
The heir-apparent to the throne, if a son of the reigning
king, shall have the title of prince royal, the other
legitimate heirs to the crown shall be culled princes, and the
king's daughters princesses.
Article 33.
As soon as the heir shall have attained the age of eighteen,
he shall have a right to sit in council, without, however,
having a vote, or any responsibility.
Article 34.
No prince of the blood shall marry without permission of the
king, and in case of contravention, he shall forfeit his right
to the crown of Norway.
Article 35.
The princes and princesses of the royal family, shall not, so
far as respects their persons, be bound to appear before other
judges, but before the king or whomsoever he shall have
appointed for that purpose.
Article 36.
The minister of state of Norway, as well as the two members of
council who are near the king, shall have a seat and
deliberative voice in the Swedish council, where objects
relative to the two kingdoms shall be treated of. In affairs
of this nature the advice of the council ought also to be
understood, unless these require quick dispatch, so as not to
allow time.
Article 37.
If the king happens to die, and the heir to the throne is
under age, the council of Norway, and that of Sweden, shall
assemble, and mutually call a convocation of the Storthing in
Norway and Diet of Sweden.
Article 38.
Although the representatives of the two kingdoms should have
assembled, and regulated the administration during the king's
minority, a council composed of an equal number of Norwegian
and Swedish members shall govern the kingdoms, and follow
their fundamental reciprocal laws. The minister of state of
Norway who sits in this council, shall draw by ballot in order
to decide on which of its members the preference shall happen
to fall.
Article 39.
The regulations contained in the two last articles shall be
always equally adopted after the constitution of Sweden. It
belongs to the Swedish council, in this quality, to be at the
head of government.
Article 40.
With respect to more particular and necessary affairs that
might occur in cases under the three former articles, the king
shall propose to the first Storthing in Norway, and at the
first Diet in Sweden, a law having for its basis the principle
of a perfect equality existing between the two kingdoms.
Article 41.
The election of guardians to be at the head of government
during the king's minority, shall be made after the same rules
and manner formerly prescribed in the second title, Article
5th, concerning the election of an heir to the throne.
Article 42.
The individuals who in the cases under the 38th and 39th
articles, are at the head of government, shall be, the
Norwegians at the Storthing of Norway, and shall take the
following oath: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern
the kingdom conformably to its constitution and laws;" and the
Swedes shall also make a similar oath. If there is not a
Storthing or Diet, it shall be deposited in writing in the
council, and afterwards repeated at the first of these when
they happen to assemble.
Article 43.
As soon as the governments have ceased, they shall be restored
to the king, and the Storthing.
Article 44.
If the Storthing is not convoked, agreeably to what is
expressed in the 38th and 39th articles, the supreme tribunal
shall consider it as an imperious duty, at the expiration of
four weeks, to call a meeting.
Article 45.
The charge of the education of the king, in case his father
may not have left in writing instructions regarding it, shall
be regulated in the manner laid down under the 5th and 41st
articles. It is held to be an invariable rule, that the king
during his minority shall learn the Norwegian language.
Article 46.
If the masculine line of the royal family is extinct, and
there has not been elected a successor to the throne, the
election of a new dynasty shall be proceeded in, and after the
manner prescribed under the 5th article. In the mean time the
executive power shall be exercised agreeably to the 41st
article.
Title III.
Article 1.
Legislative power is exercised by the Storthing, which is
constituted of two houses, namely, the Lagthing and
Odelsthing.
Article 2.
None shall have a right to vote but Norwegians, who have
attained twenty·five years, and resided in the country during
five years.
1. Those who are exercising, or who have exercised functions.
2. Possess land in the country, which has been let for more
than five years.
3. Are burgesses of some city, or possess either in it, or
some village, a house, or property of the value of at least
three hundred bank crowns in silver.
{571}
Article 3.
There shall be drawn up in cities by the magistrates, and in
every parish by the public authority and the priest, a
register of all the inhabitants who are voters. They shall
also note in it without delay, those changes which may
successively take place. Before being inscribed in the
register, everyone shall take an oath, before the tribunal, of
fidelity to the constitution.
4. Right of voting is suspended in the following cases:
1. By the accusation of crime before a tribunal;
2. By not attaining the proper age;
3. By insolvency or bankruptcy, until creditors have
obtained their payment in whole, unless it can be proved
that the former has arisen from fire, or other unforeseen
events.
5. The right of voting is forfeited definitively:
1. By condemnation to the house of correction, slavery, or
punishment for defamatory language;
2. By acceptance of the service of a foreign power, without
the consent of government.
3. By obtaining the right of citizen in a foreign country.
4. By conviction of having purchased and sold votes, and
having voted in more than one electoral assembly.
6. The electoral assemblies and districts are held every three
years, and shall finish before the end of the month of
December.
7. Electoral assemblies shall be held for the country, at the
manor-house of the parish, the church, town-hall, or some
other fit place. In the country they shall be directed by the
first minister and assistants; and in towns, by magistrates
and sheriffs; election shall be made in the order appointed by
the registers. Disputes concerning the right of voting shall
be decided by the directors of the assembly, from whose
judgment an appeal may be made to the Storthing.
8. Before proceeding to the election, the constitution shall
be read with a loud voice in the cities, by the first
magistrate, and in the country by the curate.
9. In cities, an elector shall be chosen by fifty eligible
inhabitants. They shall assemble eight days after, in the
place appointed by the magistrate, and choose, either from
amongst themselves, or from others who are eligible in the
department of their election, a fourth of their number to sit
at the Storthing, that is after the manner of three to six in
choosing one; seven to ten in electing two; eleven to fourteen
in choosing three, and fifteen to eighteen in electing four;
which is the greatest number permitted to a city to send. If
these consist of less than 150 eligible inhabitants, they
shall send the electors to the nearest city, to vote
conjointly with the electors of the former, when the two shall
only be considered as forming one district.
[Footnote: A law passed 8th February 1816, contains this
amendment. Twenty-five electors and more shall not elect
more than three representatives, which shall be, ad
interim, the greatest number which the bailiwick can send:
and, consequently, out of which the number of
representatives in the county, which are sixty-one, shall
be diminished from fifty to fifty-three.]
10. In each parish in the country the eligible inhabitants
shall choose in proportion to their number electors in the
following manner; that is to say, a hundred may choose one;
two to three hundred, three; and so on in the same proportion.
[Footnote: If future Storthings discover the number of
representatives of towns from an increase of population
should amount to thirty, the same Storthing shall have
right to augment of new the number of representatives of
the country, in the manner fixed by the principles of the
constitution, which shall be held as a rule in future.]
Electors shall assemble a month after, in the place appointed
by the bailiff, and choose, either from amongst themselves or
the others of the bailiwick eligible, a tenth of their own
number to sit at the Storthing, so that five to fourteen may
choose one; fifteen to twenty-four may choose two of them;
twenty-five to thirty-four, three; thirty-five and beyond it,
four. This is the greatest number.
11. The powers contained in the 9th and 10th articles shall
have their proper force and effect until next Storthing. If it
is found that the representatives of cities constitute more or
less than one-third of those of the kingdom, the Storthing, as
a rule for the future, shall have right to change these powers
in such a manner that representatives of the cities may join
with those of the country, as one to two; and the total number
of representatives ought not to be under seventy-five, nor
above one hundred.
12. Those eligible, who are in the country, and are prevented
from attending by sickness, military service, or other proper
reasons, can transmit their votes in writing to those who
direct the electoral assemblies, before their termination.
13. No person can be chosen a representative, unless he is
thirty years of age, and has resided ten years in the country.
14. The members of council, those employed in their offices,
officers of the court, and its pensioners, shall not be chosen
as representatives.
15. Individuals chosen to be representatives, are obliged to
accept of the election, unless prevented by motives considered
lawful by the electors, whose judgment may be submitted to the
decision of the Storthing. A person who has appeared more than
once as representative at an ordinary Storthing, is not
obliged to accept of the election for the next ordinary
Storthing. If legal reasons prevent a representative from
appearing at the Storthing, the person who after him has most
votes shall take his place.
16. As soon as representatives have been elected, they shall
receive a writing in the country from the superior magistrate,
and in the cities from the magistrate, also from all the
electors, as a proof that they have been elected in the manner
prescribed by the constitution. The Storthing shall judge of
the legality of this authority.
17. All representatives have a right to claim an
indemnification in travelling to and returning from the
Storthing; as well as subsistence during the period they shall
have remained there.
18. During the journey, and return of representatives, as well
as the time they may have attended the Storthing, they are
exempted from arrest; unless they are seized in some flagrant
and public act, and out of the Storthing they shall not be
responsible for the opinions they may have declared in it.
Everyone is bound to conform himself to the order established
in it.
19. Representatives, chosen in the manner above declared,
compose the Storthing of the kingdom of Norway.
20. The opening of the Storthing shall be made the first
lawful day in the month of February, every three years, in the
capital of the kingdom, unless the king, in extraordinary
circumstances, by foreign invasion or contagious disease,
fixes on some other city of the kingdom. Such change ought
then to be early announced.
21. In extraordinary cases, the king has the right of
assembling the Storthing, without respect to the ordinary
time. The king will then cause to be issued a proclamation,
which is to be read in all the principal churches six weeks at
least previous to the day fixed for the assembling of members
of the Storthing at the place appointed.
{572}
22. Such extraordinary Storthing may be dissolved by the king
when he shall judge fit.
23. Members of the Storthing shall continue in the exercise of
their office during three consecutive years, as much during an
extraordinary as any ordinary Storthing that might be held
during this time.
24. If an extraordinary Storthing is held at a time when the
ordinary Storthing ought to assemble, the functions of the
first will cease, as soon as the second shall have met.
25. The extraordinary Storthing, no more than the ordinary,
can be held if two-thirds of the members do not happen to be
present.
26. As soon as the Storthing shall be organized, the king, or
the person who shall be appointed by him for that purpose,
shall open it by an address, in which he is to describe the
state of the kingdom, and those objects to which he directs
the attention of the Storthing. No deliberation ought to take
place in the king's presence. The Storthing shall choose from
its members one-fourth part to form the Lagthing, and the
other three-fourths to constitute the Odelsthing. Each of
these houses shall have its private meetings, and nominate its
president and secretary.
27. It belongs to the Storthing,--
1. To make and abolish laws, establish imposts, taxes,
custom-houses, and other public acts, which shall, however,
only exist until the 1st of July of that year, when a new
Storthing shall be assembled, unless this last is expressly
renewed by them.
2. To make loans, by means of the credit of the state.
3. To watch over the finances of the state.
4. To grant sums necessary for its expenses.
5. To fix the yearly grant for the maintenance of the king
and viceroy, and also appendages of the royal family; which
ought not, however, to consist in landed property.
6. To exhibit the register of the sitting council in
Norway, and all the reports, and public documents (the
affairs of military command excepted), and certified
copies, or extracts of the registers kept by the ministers
of state and members of council near the king, or the
public documents, which shall have been produced.
7. To communicate whatever treaties the king shall have
concluded in the name of the state with foreign powers,
excepting secret articles, provided these are not in
contradiction with the public articles.
8. To require all individuals to appear before the
Storthing on affairs of state, the king and royal family
excepted. This is not, however, applicable to the princes
of the royal family, as they are invested with other
offices than that of viceroy.
9. To examine the lists of provisional pensions; and to
make such alterations as shall be judged necessary.
10. To name five revisers, who are annually to examine the
accounts of the state, and publish printed extracts of
these, which are to be remitted to the revisers also every
year before the 1st of July. 11. To naturalize foreigners.
28. Laws ought first to be proposed to the Odelsthing, either
by its own members or the government, through one of the
members of council. If the proposition is accepted, it shall
be sent to the Lagthing, who approve or reject it; and in the
last case return it accompanied with remarks. These shall be
weighed by the Odelsthing, which sets the proposed law aside,
or remits it to the Lagthing, with or without alterations.
When a law shall have been twice proposed by the Odelsthing to
the Lagthing, and the latter shall have rejected it a second
time, the Storthing shall assemble, when two-thirds of the
votes shall decide upon it. Three days at least ought to pass
between each of those deliberations.
29. When a resolution proposed by the Odelsthing shall be
approved by the Lagthing, or by the Storthing alone, a
deputation of these two houses to the Storthing shall present
it to the king if he is present, and if not, to the viceroy,
or Norwegian council, and require it may receive the royal
sanction.
30. Should the king approve of the resolution, he subscribes
to it, and from that period it is declared to pass into a
public law. If he disapproves he returns it to the Odelsthing,
declaring that at this time he does not give it his sanction.
31. In this event, the Storthing, then assembled, ought to
submit the resolution to the king, who may proceed in it in
the same manner if the first ordinary Storthing presents again
to him the same resolution. But if, after reconsideration, it
is still adopted by the two houses of the third ordinary
Storthing, and afterwards submitted to the king, who shall
have been intreated not to withhold his sanction to a
resolution that the Storthing, after the most mature
deliberations, believes to be useful; it shall acquire the
strength of a law, even should it not receive the king's
signature before the closing of the Storthing.
32. The Storthing shall sit as long as it shall be judged
necessary, but not beyond three months, without the king's
permission. When the business is finished, or after it has
assembled for the time fixed, it is dissolved by the king. His
Majesty gives, at the same time, his sanction to the decrees
not already decided, either in corroborating or rejecting
them. All those not expressly sanctioned are held to be
rejected by him.
33. Laws are to be drawn up in the Norwegian language, and
(those mentioned in 31st article excepted) in name of the
king, under the seal of the kingdom, and in these terms:--"We,
&c. Be it known, that there has been submitted to us a decree
of the Storthing (of such a date) thus expressed (follows the
resolution); We have accepted and sanctioned as law the said
decree, in giving it our signature, and seal of the kingdom."
34. The king's sanction is not necessary to the resolutions of
the Storthing, by which the legislative body,--
1. Declares itself organized as the Storthing, according to
the constitution.
2. Regulates its internal police.
3. Accepts or rejects writs of present members.
4. Confirms or rejects judgments relative to disputes
respecting elections.
5. Naturalizes foreigners.
6. And in short, the resolution by which the Odelsthing
orders some member of council to appear before the
tribunals.
35. The Storthing can demand the advice of the supreme
tribunal in judicial matters.
36. The Storthing will hold its sittings with open doors, and
its acts shall be printed and published, excepting in cases
where a contrary measure shall have been decided by the
plurality of votes.
37. Whoever molests the liberty and safety of the Storthing,
renders himself guilty of an act of high treason towards the
country.
{573}
Title IV.
Article 1.
The members of the Lagthing and supreme tribunal composing the
Rigsret, judge in the first and last instance of the affairs
entered upon by the Odelsthing, either against the members of
council or supreme tribunal for crimes committed in the
exercise of their offices, or against the members of Storthing
for acts committed by them in a similar capacity. The
president of the Lagthing has the precedence in the Rigsret.
2. The accused can, without declaring his motive for so doing,
refuse, even a third part of the members of the Rigsret,
provided, however, that the number of persons who compose this
tribunal be not reduced to less than fifteen.
3. The supreme tribunal shall judge in the last instance, and
ought not to be composed of a lesser number than the resident
and six assessors.
4. In time of peace the supreme tribunal, with two superior
officers appointed by the king, constitutes a tribunal of the
second and last resort in all military affairs which respect
life, honour, and loss of liberty for a time beyond the space
of three months.
5. The arrests of the supreme tribunal shall not in any case
be called upon to be submitted to revisal.
6. No person shall be named member of the supreme tribunal, if
he has not attained at least thirty years of age.
Title V.
Article 1.
Employments in the states shall be conferred only on Norwegian
citizens, who profess the Evangelical Lutheran religion--have
sworn fidelity to the constitution and king, speak the
language of the country, and are,--
1. Either born in the kingdom of parents who were then
subjects of the state.
2. Or born in a foreign country, their father and mother
being Norwegians, and at that period not the subjects of
another state.
3. Or, who on the 17th May, 1814, had a permanent residence
in the kingdom, and did not refuse to take an oath to
maintain the independence of Norway.
4. Or who in future shall remain ten years in the kingdom.
5. Or who have been naturalized by the Storthing.
Foreigners, however, may be nominated to these official
situations in the university and colleges, as well as to
those of physicians, and consuls in a foreign country. In
order to succeed to an office in the superior tribunal, the
person must be thirty years old; and to fill a place in the
inferior magistracy,--a judge of the tribunal of first
instance, or a public receiver, he must be twenty-five.
2. Norway does not acknowledge herself owing any other debt
than that of her own.
3. A new general code, of a civil and criminal nature,
shall first be published; or, if that is impracticable, at
the second ordinary Storthing. Meantime, the laws of the
state, as at present existing, shall preserve their effect,
since they are not contrary to this fundamental law, or
provisional ordinances published in the interval. Permanent
taxes shall continue to be levied until next Storthing.
4. No protecting dispensation, letter of respite, or
restitutions, shall be granted after the new general code
shall be published.
5. No persons can be judged but in conformity to the law, or
be punished until a tribunal shall have taken cognizance of
the charges directed against them. Torture shall never take
place.
6. Laws shall have no retro-active effect.
7. Fees due to officers of justice are not to be combined with
rents payable to the public treasury.
8. Arrest ought not to take place excepting in cases and in
the manner fixed by law. Illegal arrests, and unlawful delays,
render him who occasions them responsible to the person
arrested. Government is not authorized to employ military
force against the members of the state, but under the forms
prescribed by the laws, unless an assembly which disturbs the
public tranquillity does not instantly disperse after the
articles of the code concerning sedition shall have been read
aloud three times by the civil authorities.
9. The liberty of the press shall be established. No person
can be punished for a writing he has ordered to be printed or
published, whatever may be the contents of it, unless he has,
by himself or others, wilfully declared, or prompted others
to, disobedience of the laws, contempt for religion, and
constitutional powers, and resistance to their operations; or
has advanced false and defamatory accusations against others.
It is permitted to everyone to speak freely his opinion on the
administration of the state, or on any other object whatever.
10. New and permanent restrictions on the freedom of industry
are not to be granted in future to anyone.
11. Domiciliary visits are prohibited, excepting in the cases
of criminals.
12. Refuge will not be granted to those who shall be
bankrupts.
13. No person can in any case forfeit his landed property, and
fortune.
14. If the interest of the state requires that anyone should
sacrifice his moveable or immovable property for the public
benefit, he shall be fully indemnified by the public treasury.
15. The capital, as well as the revenues of the domains of the
church, can be applied only for the interests of the clergy,
and the prosperity of public instruction. The property of
benevolent institutions shall be employed only for their
profit.
16. The right of the power of redemption called Odelsret*, and
that of possession, called Afædesret (father's right), shall
exist. Particular regulations, which will render these of
utility to the states and agriculture, shall be determined by
the first or second Storthing.
[Footnote: In virtue of the right of "Odelsret," members
of a family to whom certain lands originally pertained, can
reclaim and retake possession of the same, even after the lapse
of centuries, provided these lands are representative of
the title of the family; that is, if for every ten years
successively they shall have judicially made reservation of
their right. This custom, injurious perhaps to the progress of
agriculture, does, however, attach the peasants to their
native soil.]
17. No county, barony, majorat or "fidei commis" shall be
created for the future.
[Footnote: "fidei commis"--Entail.]
18. Every citizen of the state, without regard to birth or
fortune, shall be equally obliged, during a particular period,
to defend his country. [Footnote: Every person is obliged to
serve from twenty-one to twenty-three, and not after.] The
application of this principle and its restrictions, as well as
the question of ascertaining to what point it is of benefit to
the country, that this obligation should cease at the age of
twenty-five,--shall be abandoned to the decision of the first
ordinary Storthing, after they shall have been discharged by a
committee; in the meantime, vigorous efforts shall preserve
their effect.
{574}
19. Norway shall retain her own language, her own finances and
coin: institutions which shall be determined upon by laws.
20. Norway has the right of having her own flag of trade and
war, which shall be an union flag.
21. If experience should show the necessity of changing some
part of this fundamental law, a proposition to this purpose
shall be made to an ordinary Storthing, published and printed;
and it only pertains to the next ordinary Storthing to decide
if the change proposed ought to be effectual or not. Such
alteration, however, ought never to be contrary to the
principles of this fundamental law; and should only have for
its object those modifications in which particular regulations
do not alter the spirit of the constitution. Two-thirds of the
Storthing ought to agree upon such a change.
Christiana, 4th November, 1814.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.
----------CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY
(Compact of the Pilgrim Fathers).
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
CONSTITUTION OF POLAND (The old).
See POLAND: A. D. 1573, and 1578-1652.
CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: (of 1891).
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
----------CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.
The following text of the Constitution granted by Frederick
William, King of Prussia, on the 31st of January, 1850, with
subsequent alterations, is a translation made by Mr. Charles
Lowe, and published in the appendix to his Life of Prince
Bismarck, 1885.
We, Frederick William, &c., hereby proclaim and give to know
that, whereas the Constitution of the Prussian State,
promulgated by us on the 5th December, 1848, subject to
revision in the ordinary course of legislation, and recognised
by both Chambers of our Kingdom, has been submitted to the
prescribed revision; we have finally established that
Constitution in agreement with both Chambers. Now, therefore,
we promulgate, as a fundamental law of the State, as
follows:--
Article 1.
All parts of the Monarchy in its present extent form the
Prussian State Territory.
Article 2.
The limits of this State Territory can only be altered by law.
Article 3.
The Constitution and the laws determine under what conditions
the quality and civil rights of a Prussian may be acquired,
exercised, and forfeited.
Article 4.
All Prussians are equal before the law. Class privileges there
are none. Public offices, subject to the conditions imposed by
law, are equally accessible to all who are competent to hold
them.
Article 5.
Personal freedom is guaranteed. The forms and conditions under
which any limitation thereof, especially arrest, is
permissible, will be determined by law.
Article 6.
The domicile is inviolable. Intrusion and search therein, as
well as the seizing of letters and papers, are only allowed in
legally settled cases.
Article 7.
No one may be deprived of his lawful judge. Exceptional
tribunals and extraordinary commissions are inadmissible.
Article 8.
Punishments can only be threatened or inflicted according to
the law.
Article 9.
Property is inviolable. It can only be taken or curtailed from
reasons of public weal and expediency, and in return for
statutory compensation which, in urgent cases at least, shall
be fixed beforehand.
Article 10.
Civil death and confiscation of property, as punishments, are
not possible.
Article 11.
Freedom of emigration can only be limited by the State, with
reference to military service. Migration fees may not be
levied.
Article 12.
Freedom of religious confession, of meeting in religious
societies (Art. 30 and 31), and of the common exercise of
religion in private and public, is guaranteed. The enjoyment
of civil and political rights is independent of religious
belief, yet the duties of a citizen or a subject may not be
impaired by the exercise of religious liberty.
Article 13.
Religious and clerical societies, which have no corporate
rights, can only acquire those rights by special laws.
Article 14.
The Christian religion is taken as the basis of those State
institutions which are connected with the exercise of
religion--all religious liberty guaranteed by Art. 12
notwithstanding.
Article 15.
[Footnote: Affected by the Falk laws of 1875, and by
the act of 1887 which repealed them.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.]
The Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as every
other religious society, regulate and administer their own
affairs in an independent manner, and remain in possession and
enjoyment of the institutions, foundations, and moneys
intended for their purposes of public worship, education, and
charity.
Article 16.
[Footnote: See Article 15.]
Intercourse between religious societies and their superiors
shall be unobstructed. The making public of Church ordinances
is only subject to those restrictions imposed on all other
publications.
Article 17.
A special law will be passed with respect to Church patronage,
and to the conditions on which it may be abolished.
Article 18.
[Footnote: See Article 15.]
Abolished is the right of nominating, proposing, electing, and
confirming, in the matter of appointments to ecclesiastical
posts, in so far as it belongs to the State, and is not based
on patronage or special legal titles.
Article 19.
Civil marriage will be introduced in accordance with a special
law, which shall also regulate the keeping of a civil
register.
Article 20.
Science and its doctrines are free.
Article 21.
The education of youth shall be sufficiently cared for by
public schools. Parents and their substitutes may not leave
their children or wards without that education prescribed for
the public folk-schools.
{585}
Article 22.
Every one shall be at liberty to give instruction, and
establish institutions for doing so, providing he shall have
given proof of his moral, scientific, and technical capacity
to the State authorities concerned.
Article 23.
All public and private institutions of an educational kind are
under the supervision of authorities appointed by the State.
Public teachers have the rights and duties of State servants.
Article 24.
[Footnote: We cannot translate "Volkschule" better
than by "folk-school."]
In the establishment of public folk-schools, confessional
differences shall receive the greatest possible consideration.
Religious instruction in the folk-schools will be
superintended by the religious societies concerned. Charge of
the other (external) affairs of the folk-schools belongs to
the Parish (Commune). With the statutory co-operation of the
Commune, the State shall appoint teachers in the public
folk-schools from the number of those qualified (for such
posts).
Article 25.
The means for establishing, maintaining, and enlarging the
public folk-schools shall be provided by the Communes, which
may, however, be assisted by the State in proven cases of
parochial inability. The obligations of third persons--based
on special legal titles--remain in force. The State,
therefore, guarantees to teachers in folk-schools a steady
income suitable to local circumstances. In public folk-schools
education shall be imparted free of charge.
Article 26.
A special law will regulate all matters of education.
Article 27.
Every Prussian is entitled to express his opinion freely by
word, writing, print, or artistic representation. Censorship
may not be introduced; every other restriction on freedom of
the Press will only be imposed by law.
Article 28.
Offences committed by word, writing, print, or artistic
representation will be punished in accordance with the general
penal code.
Article 29.
All Prussians are entitled to meet in closed rooms, peacefully
and unarmed, without previous permission from the authorities.
But this provision does not apply to open-air meetings, which
are subject to the law with respect to previous permission
from the authorities.
Article 30.
All Prussians have the right to assemble (in societies) for
such purposes as do not contravene the penal laws. The law
will regulate, with special regard to the preservation of
public security, the exercise of the right guaranteed by this
and the preceding article.
Article 31.
The law shall determine the conditions on which corporate
rights may be granted or refused.
Article 32.
The right of petitioning belongs to all Prussians. Petitions
under a collective name are only permitted to authorities and
corporations.
Article 33.
The privacy of letters is inviolable. The necessary
restrictions of this right, in cases of war and of criminal
investigation, will be determined by law.
Article 34.
All Prussians are bound to bear arms. The extent and manner of
this duty will be fixed by law.
Article 35.
The army comprises all sections of the standing army and the
Landwehr (territorial forces). In the event of war, the King
can call out the Landsturm in accordance with the law.
Article 36.
The armed force (of the nation) can only be employed for the
suppression of internal troubles, and the execution of the
laws, in the cases and manner specified by statute, and on the
requisition of the civil authorities. In the latter respect
exceptions will have to be determined by law.
Article 37.
The military judiciary of the army is restricted to penal
matters, and will be regulated by law. Provisions with regard
to military discipline will remain the subject of special
ordinances.
Article 38.
The armed force (of the nation) may not deliberate either when
on or off duty; nor may it otherwise assemble than when
commanded to do so. Assemblies and meetings of the Landwehr
for the purpose of discussing military institutions, commands
and ordinances, are forbidden even when it is not called out.
Article 39.
The provisions of Arts. 5, 6, 29, 30, and 32 will only apply
to the army in so far as they do not conflict with military
laws and rules of discipline.
Article 40.
The establishment of feudal tenures is forbidden. The Feudal
Union still existing with respect to surviving fiefs shall be
dissolved by law.
Article 41.
The provisions of Art. 40 do not apply to Crown fiefs or to
non-State fiefs.
Article 42.
Abolished without compensation, in accordance with special
laws passed, are:
1. The exercise or transfer of judicial power connected with
the possession of certain lands, together with the dues and
exemptions accruing from this right;
2. The obligations arising from patriarchal jurisdiction,
vassalage, and former tax and trading institutions. And with
these rights are also abolished the counter-services and
burdens hitherto therewith connected.
Article 43.
The person of the King is inviolable.
Article 44.
The King's Ministers are responsible. All Government acts
(documentary) of the King require for their validity the
approval of a Minister, who thereby assumes responsibility for
them.
Article 45.
The King alone is invested with executive power. He appoints
and dismisses Ministers. He orders the promulgation of laws,
and issues the necessary ordinances for their execution.
Article 46.
The King is Commander-in-Chief of the army.
Article 47.
The King fills all posts in the army, as well as in other
branches of the State service, in so far as not otherwise
ordained by law.
Article 48.
The King has the right to declare war and make peace, and to
conclude other treaties with foreign governments. The latter
require for their validity the assent of the Chambers in so
far as they are commercial treaties, or impose burdens on the
State, or obligations on its individual subjects.
Article 49.
The King has the right to pardon, and to mitigate punishment.
But in favour of a Minister condemned for his official acts,
this right can only be exercised on the motion of that Chamber
whence his indictment emanated. Only by special law can the
King suppress inquiries already instituted.
{576}
Article 50.
The King may confer orders and other distinctions, not
carrying with them privileges. He exercises the right of
coinage in accordance with the law.
Article 51.
The King convokes the Chambers, and closes their sessions. He
may dissolve both at once, or only one at a time. In such a
case, however, the electors must be assembled within a period
of 60 days, and the Chambers summoned within a period of 90
days respectively after the dissolution.
Article 52.
The King can adjourn the Chambers. But without their assent
this adjournment may not exceed the space of 30 days, nor be
repeated during the same session.
Article 53.
The Crown, according to the laws of the Royal House, is
hereditary in the male line of that House in accordance with
the law of primogeniture and agnatic succession.
Article 54.
The King attains his majority on completing his 18th year. In
presence of the united Chambers he will take the oath to
observe the Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and
inviolably, and to rule in accordance with it and the laws.
Article 55.
Without the consent of both Chambers the King cannot also be
ruler of foreign realms (Reiche).
Article 56.
If the King is a minor, or is otherwise lastingly prevented
from ruling himself, the Regency will be undertaken by that
agnate (Art. 53) who has attained his majority and stands
nearest the Crown. He has immediately to convoke the Chambers,
which, in united session, will decide as to the necessity of
the Regency.
Article 57.
If there be no agnate of age, and if no legal provision has
previously been made for such a contingency, the Ministry of
State will convoke the Chambers, which shall then elect a
Regent in united session. And until the assumption of the
Regency by him, the Ministry of State will conduct the
Government.
Article 58.
The Regent will exercise the powers invested in the King in
the latter's name; and, after institution of the Regency, he
will take an oath before the united Chambers to observe the
Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and inviolably, and
to rule in accordance with it and the laws. Until this oath is
taken, the whole Ministry of State for the time being will
remain responsible for all acts of the Government.
Article 59.
To the Crown Trust Fund appertains the annuity drawn from the
income of the forests and domains.
Article 60.
The Ministers, as well as the State officials appointed to
represent them, have access to each Chamber, and must at all
times be listened to at request. Each Chamber can demand the
presence of the Ministers. The Ministers are only entitled to
vote in one or other of the Chambers when members of it.
Article 61.
On the resolution of a Chamber the Ministers may be impeached
for the crime of infringing the Constitution, of bribery, and
of treason. The decision of such a case lies with the Supreme
Tribunal of the Monarchy sitting in United Senates. As long as
two Supreme Tribunals co-exist, they shall unite for the above
purpose. Further details as to matters of responsibility,
(criminal) procedure (thereupon), and punishments, are
reserved for a special law.
Article 62.
The legislative power will be exercised in common by the King
and by two Chambers. Every law requires the assent of the King
and the two Chambers. Money bills and budgets shall first be
laid before the Second Chamber; and the latter (i. e.,
budgets) shall either be wholly approved by the First Chamber,
or rejected altogether.
Article 63.
In the event only of its being urgently necessary to maintain
public security, or deal with an unusual state of distress
when the Chambers are not in session, ordinances, which do not
contravene the Constitution, may be issued with the force of
law, on the responsibility of the whole Ministry. But these
must be laid for approval before the Chambers at their next
meeting.
Article 64.
The King, as well as each Chamber, has the right of proposing
laws. Bills that have been rejected by one of the Chambers, or
by the King, cannot be re-introduced in the same session.
Articles 65-68.
The First Chamber is formed by royal ordinance, which can only
be altered by a law to be issued with the approval of the
Chambers. The First Chamber is composed of members appointed
by the King, with hereditary rights, or only for life.
Article 69.
The Second Chamber consists of 430 members. The electoral
districts are determined by law. They may consist of one or
more Circles (Arrondissements), or of one or more of the
larger towns.
[Footnote: Originally 350 only--a number which, in 1851, was
increased by 2, for the Principality of Hohenzollern, and in
1867 by 80 for the annexed provinces.]
Article 70.
Every Prussian who has completed his 25th year (i. e.,
attained his majority), and is capable of taking part in the
elections of the Commune where he is domiciled, is entitled to
act as a primary voter (Urwähler). Anyone who is entitled to
take part in the election of several Communes, can only
exercise his right as primary voter in one Commune.
Article 71.
For every 250 souls of the population, one (secondary) elector
(Wahlmann) shall be chosen. The primary voters fall into three
classes, in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they
pay--and in such a manner as that each class will represent a
third of the sum-total of the taxes paid by the primary
voters. This sum-total is reckoned:--
(a) by Parishes, in case the Commune does not form of itself a
primary electoral district.
(b) by (Government) Districts (Bezirke), in case the primary
electoral district consists of several Communes.
The first class consists of those primary voters, highest in
the scale of taxation, who pay a third of the total. The
second class consists of those primary voters, next highest in
the scale, whose taxes form a second third of the whole; and
the third class is made up of the remaining tax-payers (lowest
in the scale) who contribute the other third of the whole.
Each class votes apart, and for a third of the secondary
electors. These classes may be divided into several voting
sections, none of which, however, must include more than 500
primary voters. The secondary voters are elected in each class
from the number of the primary voters in their district,
without regard to the classes.
Article 72.
The deputies are elected by the secondary voters. Details will
be regulated by an electoral law, which must also make the
necessary provision for those cities where flour and slaughter
duties are levied instead of direct taxes.
{577}
Article 73.
The legislative period of the Second Chamber is fixed at three
years.
Article 74.
Eligible as deputy to the Second Chamber is every Prussian who
has completed his thirtieth year, has forfeited none of his
civil rights in consequence of a valid judicial sentence, and
has been a Prussian subject for three years. The president and
members of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts cannot sit in
either House of the Diet (Landtag).
Article 75.
After the lapse of a legislative period the Chambers will be
elected anew, and the same in the event of dissolution. In
both cases, previous members are re-eligible.
Article 76.
Both Houses of the Diet of the Monarchy shall be regularly
convened by the King in the period from the beginning of
November in each year till the middle of the following
January, and otherwise as often as circumstances require.
Article 77.
The Chambers will be opened and closed by the King in person,
or by a Minister appointed by him to do so, at a combined
sitting of the Chambers. Both Chambers shall be simultaneously
convened, opened, adjourned, and closed. If one Chamber is
dissolved, the other shall be at the same time prorogued.
Article 78.
Each Chamber will examine the credentials of its members, and
decide thereupon. It will regulate its own order of business
and discipline by special ordinances, and elect its president,
vice-presidents, and office-bearers. Civil servants require no
leave of absence in order to enter the Chamber. If a member of
the Chamber accepts a salaried office of the State, or is
promoted in the service of the State to a post involving
higher rank or increase of pay, he shall lose his seat and
vote in the Chamber, and can only recover his place in it by
re-election. No one can be member of both Chambers.
Article 79.
The sittings of both Chambers are public. On the motion of its
president, or of ten members, each Chamber may meet in private
sitting--at which this motion will then have to be discussed.
Article 80.
Neither of the Chambers can pass a resolution unless there be
present a majority of the legal number of its members. Each
Chamber passes its resolutions by absolute majority of votes,
subject to any exceptions that may be determined by the order
of business for elections.
Article 81.
Each Chamber has the separate right of presenting addresses to
the King. No one may in person present to the Chambers, or to
one of them, a petition or address. Each Chamber can transmit
the communications made to it to the Ministers, and demand of
them an answer to any grievances thus conveyed.
Article 82.
Each Chamber is entitled to appoint commissions of inquiry
into facts--for its own information.
Article 83.
The members of both Chambers are representatives of the whole
people. They vote according to their simple convictions, and
are not bound by commissions or instructions.
Article 84.
For their votes in the Chamber they can never be called to
account, and for the opinions they express therein they can
only be called to account within the Chamber, in virtue of the
order of business. No member of a Chamber can, without its
assent, be had up for examination, or be arrested during the
Parliamentary session for any penal offence, unless he be
taken in the act, or in the course of the following day. A
similar assent shall be necessary in the case of arrest for
debts. All criminal proceedings against a member of the
Chamber, and all arrests for preliminary examination, or civil
arrest, shall be suspended during the Parliamentary session on
demand from the Chamber concerned.
Article 85.
The members of the Second Chamber shall receive out of the
State Treasury travelling expenses and daily fees, according
to a statutory scale; and renunciation thereof shall be
inadmissible.
Article 86.
The judicial power will be exercised in the name of the King,
by independent tribunals subject to no other authority but
that of the law. Judgment shall be executed in the name of the
King.
Article 87.
The judges will be appointed for life by the King, or in his
name. They can only be removed or temporarily suspended from
office by judicial sentence, and for reasons foreseen by the
law. Temporary suspension from office (not ensuing on the
strength of a law), and involuntary transfer to another place,
or to the retired list, can only take place from the causes
and in the form mentioned by law, and in virtue of a judicial
sentence. But these provisions do not apply to cases of
transfer, rendered necessary by changes in the organisation of
the courts or their districts.
Article 88.
(abolished).
Article 89.
The organisation of the tribunals will only be determined by
law.
Article 90.
To the judicial office only those can be appointed who have
qualified themselves for it as prescribed by law.
Article 91.
Courts for special kinds of affairs, and, in particular,
tribunals for trade and commerce, shall be established by
statute in those places where local needs may require them.
The organisation and jurisdiction of such courts, as well as
their procedure and the appointment of their members, the
special status of the latter, and the duration of their
office, will be determined by law.
Article 92.
In Prussia there shall only be one supreme tribunal.
Article 93.
The proceedings of the civil and criminal courts shall be
public. But the public may be excluded by an openly declared
resolution of the court, when order or good morals may seem
endangered (by their admittance). In other cases publicity of
proceedings can only be limited by law.
Article 94.
In criminal cases the guilt of the accused shall be determined
by jurymen, in so far as exceptions are not determined by a
law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers. The
formation of a jury-court shall be regulated by a law.
Article 95.
By a law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers,
there may be established a special court whereof the
jurisdiction shall include the crimes of high treason, as well
as those crimes against the internal and external security of
the State, which may be assigned to it by law.
Article 96.
The competence of the courts and of the administrative
authorities shall be determined by law. Conflicts of authority
between the courts and the administrative authorities shall be
settled by a tribunal appointed by law.
{578}
Article 97.
A law shall determine the conditions on which public, civil,
and military officials may be sued for wrongs committed by
them in exceeding their functions. But the previous assent of
official superiors need not be requested.
Article 98.
The special legal status (Rechtsverhältnisse) of State
officials (including advocates and solicitors) not belonging
to the judicial class, shall be determined by a law, which,
without restricting the Government in the choice of its
executive agents, will grant civil servants proper protection
against arbitrary dismissal from their posts or diminution of
their pay.
Article 99.
All income and expenditure of the State must be pre-estimated
for every year, and be presented in the Budget, which shall be
annually fixed by a law.
Article 100.
Taxes and dues for the State Treasury may only be raised in so
far as they shall have been included in the Budget or ordained
by special laws.
Article 101.
In the matter of taxes there must be no privilege of persons.
Existing tax-laws shall be subjected to a revision, and all
such privileges abolished.
Article 102.
State and Communal officers can only levy dues on the strength
of a law.
Article 103.
The contracting of loans for the State Treasury can only be
effected on the strength of a law; and the same holds good of
guarantees involving a burden to the State.
Article 104.
Budget transgressions require subsequent approval by the
Chambers. The Budget will be examined and audited by the
Supreme Chamber of Accounts. The general Budget accounts of
every year, including tabular statistics of the National Debt,
shall, with the comments of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts,
be laid before the Chambers for the purpose of exonerating the
Government. A special law will regulate the establishment and
functions of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts.
Article 105.
The representation and administration of the Communes,
Arrondissements and Provinces of the Prussian State, will be
determined in detail by special laws.
Article 106.
Laws and ordinances become binding after having been published
in the form prescribed by law. The examination of the validity
of properly promulgated Royal ordinances is not within the
competence of the authorities, but of the Chambers.
Article 107.
The Constitution may be altered by ordinary legislative means;
and such alteration shall merely require the usual absolute
majority in both Chambers on two divisions (of the House),
between which there must elapse a period of at least
twenty-one days.
Article 108.
The members of both Chambers, and all State officials, shall
take the oath of fealty and obedience to the King, and swear
conscientiously to observe the Constitution. The army will not
take the oath to the Constitution.
Article 109.
Existing taxes and dues will continue to be raised; and all
provisions of existing statute-books, single laws, and
ordinances, which do not contravene the present Constitution,
will remain in force until altered by law.
Article 110.
All authorities holding appointments in virtue of existing
laws will continue their activity pending the issue of organic
laws affecting them.
Article 111.
In the event of war or revolution, and pressing danger to
public security therefrom ensuing, Articles 5, 6, 7, 27, 28,
29, 30, and 36 of the Constitution may be suspended for a
certain time, and in certain districts--the details to be
determined by law.
Article 112.
Until issue of the law contemplated in Article 26, educational
matters will be controlled by the laws at present in force.
Article 113.
Prior to the revision of the criminal code, a special law will
deal with offences committed by word, writing, print, or
artistic representation.
Article 114
(abolished).
Article 115.
Until issue of the electoral law contemplated in Article 72,
the ordinance of 30th May, 1849, touching the return of
deputies to the Second Chamber, will remain in force; and with
this ordinance is associated the provisional electoral law for
elections to the Second Chamber in the Hohenzollern
Principalities of 30th April, 1851.
Article 116.
The two supreme tribunals still existing shall be combined
into one-to be organised by a special law.
Article 117.
The claims of State officials appointed before the
promulgation of the Constitution shall be taken in to special
consideration by the Civil Servant Law.
Article 118.
Should changes in the present Constitution be rendered
necessary by the German Federal Constitution to be drawn up on
the basis of the Draft of 26th May, 1849, such alterations
will be decreed by the King; and the ordinances to this effect
laid before the Chambers, at their first meeting. The Chambers
will then have to decide whether the changes thus
provisionally ordained harmonise with the Federal Constitution
of Germany.
Article 119.
The Royal oath mentioned in Article 54, as well as the oath
prescribed to be taken by both Chambers and all State
officials, will have to be tendered immediately after the
legislative revision of the present Constitution (Articles 62
and 108).
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our signature and
seal.
Given at Charlottenburg, the 31st January, 1850.
(Signed) FRIEDRICH WILHELM.
In connection with Article 44 the course of domestic and
parliamentary politics drew forth the following Declaratory
Rescript from the German Emperor and King of Prussia, in
1882:--
"The right of the King to conduct the Government and policy of
Prussia according to his own discretion is limited by the
Constitution (of January 31, 1850), but not abolished. The
Government acts (documentary) of the King require the
counter-signature of a Minister, and, as was also the case
before the Constitution was issued, have to be represented by
the King's Ministers; but they nevertheless remain Government
acts of the King, from whose decisions they result, and who
thereby constitutionally expresses his will and pleasure. It
is therefore not admissible, and leads to obscuration of the
constitutional rights of the King, when their exercise is so
spoken of as if they emanated from the Ministers for the time
being responsible for them, and not from the King himself. The
Constitution of Prussia is the expression of the monarchical
tradition of this country, whose development is based on the
living and actual relations of its Kings to the people. These
relations, moreover, do not admit of being transferred to the
Ministers appointed by the King, for they attach to the person
of the King. Their preservation, too, is a political necessity
for Prussia. It is, therefore, my will that both in Prussia
and in the Legislative Bodies of the realm (or Reich), there
may be no doubt left as to my own constitutional right and
that of my successors to personally conduct the policy of my
Government; and that the theory shall always be gainsaid that
the [doctrine of the] inviolability of the person of the King,
which has always existed in Prussia, and is enunciated by
Article 43 of the Constitution, or the necessity of a
responsible counter-signature of my Government acts, deprives
them of the character of Royal and independent decisions. It
is the duty of my Ministers to support my constitutional
rights by protecting them from doubt and obscuration, and I
expect the same from all State servants (Beamten) who have
taken to me the official oath. I am far from wishing to impair
the freedom of elections, but in the case of those officials
who are intrusted with the execution of my Government acts,
and may, therefore, in conformity with the disciplinary law
forfeit their situations, the duty solemnly undertaken by
their oath of service also applies to the representation by
them of the policy of my Government during election times. The
faithful performance of this duty I shall thankfully
acknowledge, and I expect from all officials that, in view of
their oath of allegiance, they will refrain from all agitation
against my Government also during elections.
Berlin, January 4, 1882.
WILHELM. VON BISMARCK. To the Ministry of State."
----------CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA: End----------
{579}
CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14, and A. D. 284-305.
CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC.
See ROME: B. C. 509, to B. C. 286;
also COMITIA CENTURIATA;
COMITIA CURIATA;
CONSULS, ROMAN;
CONSULAR TRIBUNES;
SENATE, ROMAN;
PLEBEIANS.
CONSTITUTION OF SOLON.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
CONSTITUTION OF SPAIN (1812).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
(1869). See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
(The Early Kingdoms.) See CORTES.
CONSTITUTION OF SULLA.
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
----------End----------
CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
"Four fundamental laws account for the present political
constitution of Sweden: the law concerning the form of
government (regerings-formen) dated June 6, 1809; the law on
representation (riksdags-ordningen), June 22, 1866; the order
of succession (successions-ordningen), September 26, 1810; and the
law on the liberty of the press (tryckfrihets-forordningen),
July 16, 1812. The union with Norway is regulated by the act
of union (riks-akten), Aug. 6, 1815. ... The representation of
the nation, since the law of June 22, 1866, rests not as
formerly on the division of the nation into four orders, but
on election only. Two chambers, having equal authority,
compose the diet. The members of the first chamber are elected
for nine years by the 'landstingen' (species of provincial
assemblies) and by the 'stadsfullmäktige' (municipal
counsellors) of cities which do not sit in the 'landsting.'"
Lalor's Cyclopedia of Political Science,
volume 3, pages 834-835.
"The First Chamber consists (1892) of 147 members, or one
deputy for every 30,000 of the population. The election of the
members takes place by the 'Landstings,' or provincial
representations, 25 in number, and the municipal corporations
of the towns, not already represented in the 'Landstings,'
Stockholm, Göteberg, Malmö and Norrköping. All members of the
First Chamber must be above 35 years of age, and must have
possessed for at least three years previous to the election
either real property to the taxed value of 80,000 kroner, or
4,444 l., or an annual income of 4,000 kroner, or 223 l. They
are elected for the term of nine years, and obtain no payment
for their services. The Second Chamber consists (Autumn 1892)
of 228 members, of whom 76 are elected by the towns and 146 by
the rural districts, one representative being returned for
every 10,000 of the population of towns, one for every
'Domsaga,' or rural district, of under 40,000 inhabitants, and
two for rural districts of over 40,000 inhabitants. All
natives of Sweden, aged 21, possessing real property to the
taxed value of 1,000 kroner, or 56 l., or farming, for a
period of not less than five years, landed property to the
taxed value of 6,000 kroner, or 333 l., or paying income tax
on an annual income of 800 kroner, or 45 l., are electors; and
all natives, aged 25, possessing, and having possessed at
least one year previous to the election, the same
qualifications, may be elected members of the Second Chamber.
The number of qualified electors to the Second Chamber in 1890
was 288,096, or 6.0 of the population; only 110,896, or 38.5
of the electors actually voted. In the smaller towns and
country districts the election may either be direct or
indirect, according to the wish of the majority. The election
is for the term of three years, and the members obtain
salaries for their services, at the rate of 1,200 kroner, or
67 l., for each session of four months, besides travelling
expenses. ... The members of both Chambers are elected by
ballot, both in town and country."
Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 965.
"The Diet, or Riksdag, assembles every year, in ordinary
session, on the 15th of January, or the day following, if the
15th is a holiday. It may be convoked in extraordinary session
by the king. In case of the decease, absence, or illness of
the king, the Diet may be convoked extraordinarily by the
Council of State, or even, if this latter neglects to do so,
by the tribunals of second instance. The king may dissolve the
two chambers simultaneously, or one of them alone, during the
ordinary sessions, but the new Diet assembles after the three
months of the dissolution, and can only be dissolved again
four months after resuming its sitting. The king dissolves the
extraordinary session when he deems proper. ... The Diet
divides the right of initiative with the king: the consent of
the synod is necessary for ecclesiastical Laws. ... Every
three years the Diet names a commission of twenty-four members
(twelve from each chamber), charged with the duty of electing
six persons who are commissioned under the presidency of the
Procureur general of the Diet to watch over the liberty of the
press."
G. Demombynes, Constitutions Européennes,
volume 1, pages 84-90.
{580}
The following is the text of the Constitution as adopted in
1809, the subsequent modifications of which are indicated
above:
Form of government adopted by the King and the Estates of the
Swedish Realm, at Stockholm, on the 6th of June, 1809;
together with the Alterations afterwards introduced.
We Charles, by the Grace of God, King of the Swedes, the
Goths, and the Vandals, &c. &e. &e. Heir to Norway, Duke of
Sleswick-Holstein; Stormarn, and Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg
and Delmenhorst, &c. &c. &c. make known, that having unlimited
confidence in the estates of the realm, charged them with
drawing up a new form of government, as the perpetual
groundwork of the prosperity and independence of our common
native land, We do hereby perform a dear and pleasing duty in
promulgating the fundamental law (which has been) upon mature
deliberation, framed and adopted by the estates of the realm,
and presented unto Us this day, together with their free and
unanimous offer of the Swedish crown. Having with deep emotion
and an affectionate interest in the prosperity of a nation
which has afforded Us so striking a proof of confidence and
attachment, complied with their request, We trust to our
endeavors to promote its happiness, as the reciprocal rights
and duties of the monarch and the subjects have been marked so
distinctly, that, without encroachment on the sacred nature
and power of majesty, the constitutional liberty of the people
is protected. We do therefore hereby adopt, sanction, and
ratify this form of government, such as it follows here:--
We the underwritten representatives of the Swedish realm,
counts, barons, bishops, knights, nobles, clergymen, burghers,
and peasants, assembled at a general Diet, in behalf of
ourselves and our brethren at home, Do hereby make known,
that, having by the late change of government, to which we,
the deputies of the Swedish people, gave our unanimous assent,
exercised our rights of drawing up a new and improved
constitution, we have, in repealing those fundamental laws,
which down to this day have been in force more or less;
viz.,--The Form of Government of the 21st of August 1772, the
Act of Union and Security, of the 21st of February and the 3d
of April 1789, the Ordinance of Diet, of the 24th of January
1617, as well as all those laws, acts, statutes, and
resolutions comprehended under the denomination of fundamental
laws;--We have Resolved to adopt for the kingdom of Sweden and
its dependencies the following constitution, which from
henceforth shall be the chief fundamental law of the realm,
reserving to Ourselves, before the expiration of the present
Diet, to consider the other fundamental laws, mentioned in the
85th article of this constitution.
Article 1.
The kingdom of Sweden shall be governed by a king, who shall
be hereditary in that order of succession which the estates
will further hereafter determine.
Article 2.
The king shall profess the pure evangelical faith, such as is
contained and declared m the Augsburgian Confession, and
explained in the Decree of the Diet at Upsala in the year
1593.
Article 3.
The majesty of the king shall be held sacred and inviolable;
and his actions shall not be subject to any censure.
Article 4.
The king shall govern the realm alone, in the manner
determined by this constitution. In certain cases, however,
(to be specified) he shall take the opinion of a council of
state, which shall be constituted of well-informed,
experienced, honest, and generally-esteemed native Swedes,
noblemen and commoners, who profess the pure evangelical
faith.
Article 5.
The council of state shall consist of nine members, viz., the
minister of state and justice, who shall always be a member of
the king's supreme court of judicature, the minister of state
for foreign affairs, six counsellors of state, three of whom
at least must have held civil offices, and the chancellor of
the court, or aulic chancellor. The secretaries of state shall
have a seat and vote in the council, when they have to report
matters there, and in cases that belong to their respective
departments. Father and son, or two brothers, shall not be
permitted to be constant members of the council of state.
Article 6.
The secretaries of state shall be four, viz.--One for
military affairs; a second for public economy, mining, and all
other affairs connected with the civil and interior
administration; a third for the finances of the realm, inland
and foreign commerce, manufactures, &c.; and the fourth, for
affairs relating to religion, public education, and charities.
Article 7.
All affairs of government shall be laid before the king, and
decided in a council of state: those of a ministerial nature,
however, excepted, concerning the relations of the realm with
foreign powers, and matters of military command, which the
king decides in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the land
and naval forces.
Article 8.
The king can make no decision in matters in which the council
of state are to be heard, unless at least three counsellors of
state, and the secretary of state whom it concerns, or his
deputy-secretary, are present.--All the members of the council
shall, upon due notice, attend all deliberations deemed of
importance, and which concern the general administration of
the affairs of the kingdom; such as questions for adopting new
statutes, repealing or altering those in existence,
introducing new institutions in the different branches of the
administration, &c.
Article 9.
Minutes shall be kept of all matters which shall come before
the king in his council of state. The ministers of state, the
counsellors of state, the aulic chancellor, and the
secretaries of state or deputy-secretaries, shall be
peremptorily bound to deliver their opinions: it is, however,
the prerogative of the king to decide. Should it, however,
unexpectedly occur, that the decisions of the king are
evidently contrary to the constitution and the common law of
the realm, it shall in that case be the duty of the members of
the council of state to make spirited remonstrances against
such decision or resolution. Unless a different opinion has
been recorded in the minutes (for then the counsellors present
shall be considered as having advised the king to the adopted
measure), the members of the council shall be responsible for
their advices, as enacted in the 106th article.
{581}
Article 10.
Necessary informations having been demanded and obtained from
the proper boards, authorities, and functionaries, the affairs
for deliberation shall be prepared by the secretary of state
and eight skilful and impartial men, consisting of four nobles
and four commoners, in order to their being laid before the
king in the council of state.--The secretary, as well as all
the other members of this committee (which are nominated by
the king) for preparing the general affairs of the kingdom,
shall upon all occasions, when so met, deliver their opinions
to the minutes, which shall afterwards be reported to the king
and the council of state.
Article 11.
As to the management of the ministerial affairs, they may be
prepared and conducted in the manner which appears most
suitable to the king. It appertains to the minister for
foreign affairs to lay such matters before him in the presence
of the aulic chancellor, or some other member of the council,
if the chancellor cannot attend. In the absence of the
minister of state this duty devolves upon the aulic
chancellor, or any other member of the council of state, whom
his majesty may appoint. After having ascertained the opinions
of these official persons entered in the minutes, and for
which they shall be responsible, the king shall pronounce his
decision in their presence. It shall be the duty of the aulic
chancellor to keep the minutes on these occasions. The king
shall communicate to the council of state the information on
these topics as may be necessary, in order that they may have
a general knowledge even of this branch of the administration.
Article 12.
The king can enter into treaties and alliances with foreign
powers, after having ascertained, as enacted in the preceding
article, the opinion of the minister of state for foreign
affairs, and of the aulic chancellor.
Article 13.
When the king is at liberty to commence war, or conclude
peace, he shall convoke an extraordinary council of state; the
ministers of state, the counsellors of state, the aulic
chancellor, and the secretaries of state; and, after having
explained to them the circumstances which require their
consideration, he shall desire their opinions thereon, which
each of them shall individually deliver, on the responsibility
defined in the 107th article. The king shall thereafter have a
right to adopt the resolutions, or make such decision as may
appear to him most beneficial for the kingdom.
Article 14.
The king shall have the supreme command of the military forces
by sea and land.
Article 15.
The king shall decide in all matters of military command, in
the presence of that minister or officer to whom he has
entrusted the general management thereof. It shall be the duty
of this person to give his opinion, under responsibility, upon
the resolutions taken by the king, and in case of these being
contrary to his advice, he shall be bound to enter his
objections and counsel in the minutes, which the king must
confirm by his own signature. Should this minister or official
person find the resolutions of the king to be of a dangerous
tendency, or founded on mistaken or erroneous principles, he
shall advise his majesty to convoke two or more military
officers of a superior rank into a council of war. The king
shall, however, be at liberty to comply with or to reject this
proposition for a council of war; and if approved of, he may
take what notice he pleases of the opinions of such council,
which shall, however, be entered in the minutes.
Article 16.
The king shall promote the exercise of justice and right, and
prevent partiality and injustice. He shall not deprive any
subject of life, honour, liberty, and property, without
previous trial and sentence, and in that order which the laws
of the country prescribe. He shall not disturb, or cause to be
disturbed, the peace of any individual in his house. He shall
not banish any from one place to another, nor constrain, or
cause to be constrained, the conscience of any; but shall
protect everyone in the free exercise of his religion,
provided he does not thereby disturb the tranquillity of
society, or occasion public offence. The king shall cause
everyone to be tried in that court to which he properly
belongs.
Article 17.
The king's prerogative of justice shall be invested in twelve
men, learned in the law, six nobles, and six commoners, who
have shown knowledge, experience, and integrity in judicial
matters. They shall be styled counsellors of justice, and
constitute the king's supreme court of justice.
Article 18.
The supreme court of justice shall take cognizance of
petitions to the king for cancelling sentences which have
obtained legal force, and granting extension of time in
lawsuits, when it has been, through some circumstances,
forfeited.
Article 19.
If information be sought by judges or courts of justice
concerning the proper interpretation of the law, the
explanation thus required shall be given by the said supreme
court.
Article 20.
In time of peace, all cases referred from the courts martial
shall be decided in the supreme court of justice. Two military
officers of a superior degree, to be nominated by the king,
shall, with the responsibility of judges, attend and have a
vote in such cases in the supreme court. The number of judges
may not, however, exceed eight. In time of war, all such cases
shall be tried as enacted by the articles of war.
Article 21.
The king, should he think fit to attend, shall have right to
two votes in causes decided by the supreme court. All
questions concerning explanations of the law shall be reported
to him, and his suffrages counted, even though he should not
have attended the deliberations of the court.
Article 22.
Causes of minor importance may be decided in the supreme court
by five members, or even four, if they are all of one opinion;
but in causes of greater consequence seven counsellors, at
least, must attend. More than eight members of the supreme
court, or four noblemen and four commoners, may not be at one
time in active service.
Article 23.
All the decrees of the supreme court of justice shall issue in
the king's name, and under his hand and seal.
Article 24.
The cases shall be prepared in the "king's inferior court for
revision of judiciary affairs," in order to be laid before, or
produced in the supreme court.
Article 25.
In criminal cases the king has a right to grant pardon, to
mitigate capital punishment, and to restore property forfeited
to the crown. In applications, however, of this kind, the
supreme court shall be heard, and the king give his decision
in the council of state.
Article 26.
When matters of justice are laid before the council of state,
the minister of state and justice, and, at least, two
counsellors of state, two members of the supreme court, and
the chancellor of justice shall attend, who must all deliver
their opinions to the minutes, according to the general
instruction for the members of the council of state, quoted in
the 91st article.
{582}
Article 21.
The king shall nominate, as chancellor of justice, a
juris-consult, an able and impartial man, who has previously
held the office of a judge. It shall be his chief duty, as the
highest legal officer or attorney general of the king, to
prosecute, either personally or through the officers or
fiscals under him, in all such cases as concern the public
safety and the rights of the crown, on the king's behalf, to
superintend the administration of justice, and to take
cognizance of, and correct, errors committed by judges or
other legal officers in the discharge of their official
duties.
Article 28.
The king, in his council of state, has a right to appoint
native Swedes to all such offices and places within the
kingdom for which the king's commissions are granted. The
proper authorities shall, however, send in the names of the
candidates to be put in nomination for such employments. The
king may, likewise, appoint foreigners of eminent talents to
military offices, without, however, entrusting to them the
command of the fortresses of the realm. In preferments the
king shall only consider the merits and the abilities of the
candidates, without any regard to their birth. Ministers and
counsellors of state and of justice, secretaries of state,
judges, and all other civil officers, must always be of the
pure evangelical faith.
Article 29.
The archbishop and bishops shall be elected as formerly, and
the king nominates one of the three candidates proposed to
him.
Article 30.
The king appoints, as formerly, the incumbents of rectories in
the gift of the crown. As to the consistorial benefices, the
parishioners shall be maintained in their usual right of
election.
Article 31.
Citizens, who are freemen of towns, shall enjoy their
privilege as heretofore, of proposing to the king three
candidates for the office of burgomaster or mayor, one of whom
the king selects. The aldermen and secretaries of the
magistracy of Stockholm shall be elected in the same manner.
Article 32.
The king appoints envoys to foreign courts and the officers of
the embassies, in the presence of the minister of state for
foreign affairs and the aulic chancellor.
Article 33.
When offices, for which candidates are proposed, are to be
filled up, the members of the council of state shall deliver
their opinions on the qualifications and merits of the
applicants. They shall also have right to make respectful
remonstrances against the nomination of the king respecting
other offices.
Article 34.
The new functionaries created by this constitution, viz.--the
ministers and counsellors of state and counsellors of justice,
shall be paid by the crown, and may not hold any other civil
offices. The two ministers of state are the highest
functionaries of the realm. The counsellors of state shall
hold the rank of generals, and the counsellors of justice that
of lieutenant-generals.
Article 35.
The minister of state for foreign affairs, the counsellors of
state, the presidents of the public boards, the grand governor
of Stockholm, the deputy governor, and the chief magistrate of
police in the city, the aulic chancellor, the chancellor of
justice, the secretaries of state, the governors or
lord-lieutenants of provinces, field marshals, generals and
admirals of all degrees, adjutant generals, adjutant in chief,
adjutants of the staff, the governors of fortresses, captain
lieutenants, and officers of the king's life guards, colonels
of the regiments, and officers second in command in the foot
and horse guards, lieutenant-colonels in the brigade of the
life regiments, chiefs of the artillery of the royal
engineers, ministers, envoys, and commercial agents with
foreign powers, and official persons employed in the king's
cabinet for the foreign correspondence, and at the embassies,
as holding places of trust, can be removed by the king, when
he considers it necessary for the benefit of the realm. The
king shall, however, signify his determination in the council
of state, the members whereof shall be bound to make
respectful remonstrances, if they see it expedient.
Article 36.
Judges, and all other official persons, not included in the
preceding article, cannot be suspended from their situations
without legal trial, nor be translated or removed to other
places, without having themselves applied for these.
Article 31.
The king has power to confer dignities on those who have
served their country with fidelity, bravery, virtue, and zeal.
He may also promote to the order of counts and barons,
persons, who by eminent merits have deserved such an honour.
Nobility and the dignity of a count and baron, granted from
this time, shall no longer devolve to any other than the
individual himself thus created a noble, and after him, to the
oldest of his male issue in a direct descending line, and this
branch of the family being extinct, to the nearest male
descendant of the ancestor.
Article 38.
All despatches and orders emanating from the king, excepting
such as concern military affairs, shall be countersigned by
the secretary who has submitted them to the council, and is
responsible for their being conformable to the minutes. Should
the secretary find any of the decisions made by the king to be
contrary to the spirit of the constitution, he shall make his
remonstrances respecting the same, in the council of state.
Should the king still persist in his determination, it shall
then be the duty of the secretary to refuse his countersign,
and resign his place, which he may not resume until the
estates of the realm shall have examined and approved of his
conduct. He shall, however, in the mean time, receive his
salary, and all the fees of his office as formerly.
Article 39.
If the king wishes to go abroad, he shall communicate his
resolution to the council of state, in a full assembly, and
take the opinion of all its members, as enacted in the ninth
article. During the absence of the king he may not interfere
with the government, or exercise the regal power, which shall
be carried on, in his name, by the council of state; the
council of state cannot, however, confer dignities or create
counts, barons, and knights; and all officers appointed by the
council shall only hold their places ad interim.
Article 40.
Should the king be in such a state of health as to be
incapable of attending to the affairs of the kingdom, the
council of state shall conduct the administration, as enacted
in the preceding article.
Article 41.
The king shall be of age after having completed eighteen
years. Should the king die before the heir of the crown has
attained this age, the government shall be conducted by the
council of state, acting with regal power and authority, in
the name of the king, until the estates of the realm shall
have appointed a provisional government or regency; and the
council of state is enjoined strictly to conform to the
enactments of this constitution.
{583}
Article 42.
Should the melancholy event take place, that the whole royal
family became extinct on the male side, the council of state
shall exercise the government with regal power and authority,
until the estates have chosen another royal house, and the new
king has taken upon himself the government. All occurrences or
things having reference to the four last articles, shall be
determined by the whole council of state and the secretaries
of state.
Article 43.
When the king takes the field of battle, or repairs to distant
parts of the kingdom, he shall constitute four of the members
of the council of state to exercise the government in those
affairs which he is pleased to prescribe.
Article 44.
No prince of the royal family shall be permitted to marry
without having obtained the consent of the king, and in the
contrary case shall forfeit his right of inheritance to the
kingdom, both for himself and descendants.
Article 45.
Neither the crown prince, or any other prince of the royal
family, shall have any appanage or civil place. The princes of
the blood may, however, bear titles of dukedoms and
principalities, as heretofore, but without any claims upon
those provinces.
Article 46.
The kingdom shall remain divided, as heretofore, into
governments, under the usual provincial administrations. No
governor-general shall, from this time, be appointed within
the kingdom.
Article 47.
The courts of justice, superior as well as inferior, shall
administer justice according to the laws and statutes of the
realm. The provincial governors, and all other public
functionaries, shall exercise the offices entrusted to them
according to existing regulations; they shall obey the orders
of the king, and be responsible to him if any act is done
contrary to law.
Article 48.
The court of the king is under his own management, and he may
at his own pleasure appoint or discharge all his officers and
attendants there.
Article 49.
The estates of the realm shall meet every fifth year. In the
decree of every Diet the day shall be fixed for the next
meeting of the estates. The king may, however, convoke the
estates to an extraordinary Diet before that time.
Article 50.
The Diets shall be held in the capital, except when the
invasion of an enemy, or some other important impediment, may
render it dangerous for the safety of the representatives.
Article 51.
When the king or council convokes the estates, the period for
the commencement of the Diet shall be subsequent to the
thirtieth, and within the fiftieth day, to reckon from that
day when the summons has been proclaimed in the churches of
the capital.
Article 52.
The king names the speakers of the nobles, the burghers and
the peasants: the archbishop is, at all times, the constant
speaker of the clergy.
Article 53.
The estates of the realm shall, immediately after the opening
of the Diet, elect the different committees, which are to
prepare the affairs intended for their consideration. Such
committees shall consist in,
a constitutional committee, which shall take cognizance of
questions concerning proposed alterations in the
fundamental laws, report thereupon to the representatives,
and examine the minutes held in the council of state;
a committee of finances, which shall examine and report
upon the state and management of the revenues;
a committee of taxation, for regulating the taxes;
a committee of the bank for inquiring into the
administration of the affairs of the national bank;
a law committee for digesting propositions concerning
improvements in the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical
laws;
a committee of public grievances and matters of economy, to
attend to the defects in public institutions, suggest
alterations, &c.
Article 54.
Should the king desire a special committee for deliberating
with him on such matters as do not come within the cognizance
of any of the other committees, and are to be kept secret, the
estates shall select it. This committee shall, however, have
no right to adopt any resolutions, but only to give their
opinion on matters referred to them by the king.
Article 55.
The representatives of the realm shall not discuss any subject
in the presence of the king, nor can any other committee than
the one mentioned in the above article hold their
deliberations before him.
Article 56.
General questions started at the meetings or the orders of the
estates, cannot be immediately discussed or decided, but shall
be referred to the proper committees, which are to give their
opinion thereupon. The propositions or report of the
committees shall, in the first instance, without any
alteration or amendment, be referred to the estates at the
general meetings of all the orders. If at these meetings,
observations should be made which may prevent the adoption of
the proposed measure, these objections shall be communicated
to the committee, in order to its being examined and revised.
A proposition thus prepared having been again referred to the
estates, it shall remain with them to adopt it, with or
without alterations, or to reject it altogether. Questions
concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, shall be thus
treated:
If the constitutional committee approves of the suggestion
of one of the representatives, or the committee reports in
favour of or against a measure proposed by the king, the
opinion of the committee shall be referred to the estates,
who may discuss the topic, but not come to any resolution
during that Diet.
If at the general meetings of the orders no observations
are made against the opinion of the committee, the question
shall be postponed till the Diet following, and then be
decided solely by yes or no, as enacted in the 75th article
of the ordinance of Diet.
If, on the contrary, objections are urged at the general
meetings of the orders against the opinion of the
committee, these shall be referred back for its
reconsideration. If all the orders be of one opinion, the
question shall be postponed for final decision, as enacted
above. Should again a particular order differ from the
other orders, twenty members shall be elected from among
every order, and added to the committee, for adjusting the
differences. The question being thus prepared, shall be
decided at the following Diet.
Article 57.
The ancient right of the Swedish people, of imposing taxes on
themselves, shall be exercised by the estates only at a
general Diet.
Article 58.
The king shall at every Diet lay before the committee of
finances the state of the revenues in all their branches.
Should the crown have obtained subsidies through treaties with
foreign powers, these shall be explained in the usual way.
{584}
Article 59.
The king shall refer to the decision of this committee to
determine what the government may require beyond the ordinary
taxation, to be raised by an extraordinary grant.
Article 60.
No taxes of any description whatever can be increased without
the express consent of the estates. The king may not farm or
let on lease the revenues of state, for the sake of profit to
himself and the crown; nor grant monopolies to private
individuals, or corporations.
Article 61.
All taxes shall be paid to the end of that term for which they
have been imposed. Should, however, the estates meet before
the expiration of that term, new regulations shall take place.
Article 62.
The funds required by government having been ascertained by
the committee of finances, it shall rest with the estates
whether to assign proportionate means, and also to determine
how the various sums granted shall be appropriated.
Article 63.
Besides these means, two adequate sums shall be voted and set
apart for the disposal of the king, after he has consulted the
council of state,--for the defence of the kingdom, or some
other important object;--the other sum to be deposited in the
national bank, in case of war, after the king has ascertained
the opinion of the council and convened the estates. The seal
of the order for this latter sum may not be broken, nor the
money be paid by the commissioners of the bank, till the
summons to Diet shall have been duly proclaimed in the
churches of the capital.
Article 64.
The ordinary revenues of the land, as well as the
extraordinary grants which may be voted by the estates, shall
be at the disposal of the king for the civil list and other
specified purposes.
Article 65.
The above means may not be applied but for the assigned
purposes, and the council of state shall be responsible if
they permit any deviation in this respect, without entering
their remonstrances in the minutes, and pointing out what the
constitution in this case ordains.
Article 66.
The funds of amortissement or national debt, shall remain, as
heretofore, under the superintendence and direction of the
estates, who have guaranteed or come under a responsibility
for the national debt; and after having received the report of
the committee of finances on the affairs of that
establishment, the estates will provide, through a special
grant, the requisite means for paying the capital as well as
the interest of this debt, in order that the credit of the
kingdom may be maintained.
Article 67.
The deputy of the king shall not attend the meetings of the
directors or commissioners of the funds of amortissement, on
any other occasion than when the directors are disposed to
take his opinion.
Article 68.
The means assigned for paying off the national debt shall not,
under any pretence or condition, be appropriated to other
purposes.
Article 69.
Should the estates, or any particular order, entertain doubts
either in allowing the grant proposed by the committee of
finances, or as to the participation in the taxes, or the
principles of the management of the funds of amortissement,
these doubts shall be communicated to the committee for their
further consideration.--If the committee cannot coincide in
the opinions of the estates, or a single order, it shall
depute some members to explain circumstances. Should this
order still persist in its opinion, the question shall be
decided by the resolution of three orders. If two orders be of
one, and the other two of a different opinion, thirty new
members of every order shall be added to the committee--the
committee shall then vote conjointly, and not by orders, with
folded billets, for adopting, or rejecting, unconditionally
the proposition of the committee.
Article 70.
The committee of taxation shall at every Diet suggest general
principles for dividing the future taxes, and the amount
having been fixed, the committee shall also propose how these
are to be paid, referring their proposition to the
consideration and decision of the states.
Article 71.
Should a difference of opinion arise between the orders, as to
these principles and the mode of applying them, and dividing
the taxes; or, what hardly can be presumed, any order decline
participating in the proposed taxation, the order, which may
thus desire some alteration, shall communicate their views to
the other representatives, and suggest in what mode this
alteration may be effected without frustrating the general
object. The committee of taxation having again reported
thereon to the estates, they, the estates, shall decide the
question at issue. If three orders object to the proposition
of the committee, it shall be rejected. If, again, three
orders oppose the demands of a single order, or if two be of
an opinion contrary to that of the other two, the question
shall be referred to the committee of finances, with an
additional number of members, as enacted in the above article.
If the majority of this committee assent to the proposition of
the committee of taxation, in those points concerning which
the representatives have disagreed, the proposition shall be
considered as the general resolution of the estates. Should
it, on the contrary, be negatived by a majority of votes, or
be rejected by three orders, the committee of taxation shall
propose other principles for levying and dividing the taxes.
Article 72.
The national bank shall remain, as formerly, under the
superintendence and guarantee of the estates, and the
management of directors selected from among all the orders,
according to existing regulations. The states alone can issue
bank-notes, which are to be recognized as the circulating
medium of the realm.
Article 73.
No troops, new taxes or imposts, either in money or kind, can
be levied without the voluntary consent of the estates, in the
usual order, as aforesaid.
Article 74.
The king shall have no right to demand or levy any other aid
for carrying on war, than that contribution of provisions
which may be necessary for the maintenance of the troops
during their march through a province. These contributions
shall, however, be immediately paid out of the treasury,
according to the fixed price-current of provisions, with an
augmentation of a moiety, according to this valuation. Such
contributions may not be demanded for troops which have been
quartered in a place, or are employed in military operations,
in which case they shall be supplied with provisions from the
magazines.
Article 75.
The annual estimation of such rentes as are paid in kind shall
be fixed by deputies elected from among all the orders of the
estates.
Article 76.
The king cannot, without the consent of the estates, contract
loans within or without the kingdom, nor burthen the land with
any new debts.
{585}
Article 77.
He cannot also, without the consent of the estates, vend,
pledge, mortgage, or in any other way alienate domains, farms,
forests, parks, preserves of game, meadows, pasture-land,
fisheries, and other appurtenances of the crown. These shall
be managed according to the instructions of the estates.
Article 78.
No part of the kingdom can be alienated through sale,
mortgage, donation, or in any other way whatever.
Article 79.
No alteration can be effected in the standard value of the
coin, either for enhancing or deteriorating it, without the
consent of the estates.
Article 80.
The land and naval forces of the realm shall remain on the
same footing, till the king and the estates may think proper
to introduce some other principles. No regular troops can be
raised, without the mutual consent of the king and the
estates.
Article 81.
This form of government and the other fundamental laws cannot
be altered or repealed, without the unanimous consent of the
king and the estates. Questions to this effect cannot be
brought forward at the meetings of the orders, but must be
referred to the constitutional committee, whose province it is
to suggest such alterations in the fundamental laws, as may be
deemed necessary, useful, and practicable. The estates may not
decide on such proposed alterations at the same Diet. If all
the orders agree about the alteration, it shall be submitted
to the king, through the speakers, for obtaining his royal
sanction, After having ascertained the opinion of the council,
the king shall take his resolution, and communicate to the
estates either his approbation or reasons for refusing it. In
the event of the king proposing any alteration in the
fundamental laws, he shall, after having taken the opinion of
the council, deliver his proposition to the estates, who
shall, without discussing it, again refer it to the
constitutional committee. If the committee coincide in the
proposition of the king, the question shall remain till next
Diet. If again the committee is averse to the proposition of
the king, the estates may either reject it immediately or
adjourn it to the following Diet. In the case of all the
orders approving of the proposition, they shall request that a
day be appointed to declare their consent in the presence of
his majesty, or signify their disapprobation through their
speakers.
Article 82.
What the estates have thus unanimously resolved and the king
sanctioned, concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, or
the king has proposed and the estates approved of, shall for
the future have the force and effect of a fundamental law.
Article 83.
No explanation of the fundamental laws may be established by
any other mode or order, than that prescribed by the two
preceding articles. Laws shall be applied according to their
literal sense.
Article 84.
When the constitutional committee find no reason for approving
of the proposition, made by a representative concerning
alterations or explanations of the fundamental laws, it shall
be the duty of the committee to communicate to him, at his
request, their opinion, which the proposer of the resolution
may publish, with his own motion, and under the usual
responsibility of authors.
Article 85.
As fundamental laws of the present form of government, there
shall be considered the ordinance of Diet, the order of
succession, and the act concerning universal liberty of the
press.
Article 86.
By the liberty of the press is understood the right of every
Swedish subject to publish his writings, without any
impediment from the government, and without being responsible
for them, except before a court of justice, or liable to
punishment, unless their contents be contrary to a clear law,
made for the preservation of public peace. The minutes, or
protocols, or the proceedings, may be published in any case,
excepting the minutes kept in the council of state and before
the king in ministerial affairs, and those matters of military
command; nor may the records of the bank, and the office of
the funds of amortissement, or national debt, be printed.
Article 87.
The estates, together with the king, have the right to make
new and repeal old laws. In this view such questions must be
proposed at the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
and shall be decided by them, after having taken the opinion
of the law committee, as laid down in the 56th article. The
proposition shall be submitted, through the speakers, to the
king, who, after having ascertained the opinion of the council
of state and supreme court, shall declare either his royal
approbation, or motives for withholding it. Should the king
desire to propose any alteration in the laws, he shall, after
having consulted the council of state and supreme court, refer
his proposition, together with their opinion, to the
deliberation of the states, who, after having received the
report of the law committee, shall decide on the point. In all
such questions the resolution of three orders shall be
considered as the resolution of the estates of the realm. If
two orders are opposed to the other two, the proposition is
negatived, and the law is to remain as formerly.
Article 88.
The same course, or mode of proceeding, shall be observed in
explaining the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical laws, as in
making these. Explanations concerning the proper sense of the
law given by the supreme court in the name of the king, in the
interval between the Diets, may be rejected by the states, and
shall not afterwards be valid, or cited by the courts of
judicature.
Article 89.
At the general meetings of the orders of the estates,
questions may be proposed for altering, explaining, repealing,
and issuing acts concerning public economy; and the principles
of public institutions of any kind may be discussed. These
questions shall afterwards be referred to the committee of
public grievances and economical affairs, and then be
submitted to the decision of the king, in a council of state.
When the king is pleased to invite the estates to deliberate
with him on questions concerning the general administration,
the same course shall be adopted as is prescribed for
questions concerning the laws.
Article 90.
During the deliberations of the orders, or their committees,
no questions shall be proposed but in the way expressly
prescribed by this fundamental law, concerning either
appointing or removing of officers, decisions and resolutions
of the government and courts of law, and the conduct of
private individuals and corporations.
Article 91.
When the king, in such cases as those mentioned in the 39th
article, is absent from the kingdom longer than twelve months,
the council shall convoke the estates to a general Diet, and
cause the summons to be proclaimed within fifteen days from
the above time, in the churches of the capital, and speedily
afterwards in the other parts of the kingdom. If the king,
after being informed thereof, does not return to the kingdom,
the estates shall adopt such measures as they deem most
beneficial for the country.
{586}
Article 92.
The same shall be enacted in case of any disease or ill health
of the king, which might prevent him from attending to the
affairs of the kingdom for more than twelve months.
Article 93.
When the heir of the crown, at the decease of the king, is
under age, the council of state shall issue summons to the
representatives to meet. The estates of the realm shall have
the right, without regard to the will of a deceased king
concerning the administration, to appoint one or several
guardians, to rule in the king's name, according to this
fundamental law, till the king becomes of age.
Article 94.
Should it ever happen that the royal family become extinct in
the male line, the council of state shall convene the estates,
to elect another royal family to rule conformably to this
fundamental law.
Article 95.
Should, contrary to expectation, the council of state fail to
convoke the estates, in the cases prescribed by the 91st, 93d,
and 94th articles, it shall be the positive duty of the
directors of the house of nobles, the chapters throughout the
kingdom, the magistrates in the capital, and the governors in
the provinces, to give public notice thereof, in order that
elections of deputies to the Diet may forthwith take place,
and the estates assemble to protect their privileges and
rights of the kingdom. Such a Diet shall be opened on the
fiftieth day from that period when the council of state had
proclaimed the summons in the churches of the capital.
Article 96.
The estates shall at every Diet appoint an officer,
distinguished for integrity and learning in the law, to watch
over, as their deputy, the conduct of the judges and other
official men, and who shall, in legal order and at the proper
court, arraign those who in the performance of their offices
have betrayed negligence and partiality, or else have
committed any illegal act. He shall, however, be liable to the
same responsibility as the law prescribes for public
prosecutors in general.
Article 97.
This deputy or attorney-general of the estates shall be chosen
by twelve electors out of every order.
Article 98.
The electors shall at the same time they choose the said
attorney-general, elect a person possessing equal or similar
qualities to succeed him, in case of his death before the next
Diet.
Article 99.
The attorney-general may, whenever he pleases, attend the
sessions of all the superior and inferior courts, and the
public offices, and shall have free access to their records
and minutes; and the king's officers shall be bound to give
him every assistance.
Article 100.
The attorney-general shall at every Diet present a report of
the performance of his office, explaining the state of the
administration of justice in the land, noticing the defects in
the existing laws, and suggesting new improvements. He shall
also, at the end of each year, publish a general statement
concerning these.
Article 101.
Should the supreme court, or any of its members, from
interest, partiality, or negligence, judge so wrong that an
individual, contrary to law and evidence, did lose or might
have lost life, liberty, honour, or property, the
attorney-general shall be bound, and the chancellor of justice
authorised, to arraign the guilty, according to the laws of
the realm, in the court after mentioned.
Article 102.
This court is to be denominated the court of justice for the
realm, and shall be formed by the president in the superior
court of Swea, the presidents of all the public boards, four
senior members of the council of state, the highest commander
of the troops within the capital, and the commander of the
squadron of the fleet stationed at the capital, two of the
senior members of the superior court of Swea, and the senior
member of all the public boards. Should any of the officers
mentioned above decline attending this court, he shall be
legally responsible for such a neglect of duty. After trial,
the judgment shall be publicly announced: no one can alter
such a sentence. The king may, however, extend pardon to the
guilty, but not admitting him any more into the service of the
kingdom.
Article 103.
The estates shall at every Diet nominate a jury of twelve
members from out of each order, for deciding if the members of
the supreme court of justice have deserved to fill their
important places, or if any member, without having been
legally convicted for the faults mentioned in the above
articles, yet ought to be removed from office.
Article 104.
The estates shall not resolve themselves into a court of
justice, nor enter into any special examination of the
decrees, verdicts, resolutions of the supreme court.
Article 105.
The constitutional committee shall have right to demand the
minutes of the council of state, except those which concern
ministerial or foreign affairs, and matters of military
command, which may only be communicated as far as these have a
reference to generally known events, specified by the
committee.
Article 106.
Should the committee find from these minutes that any member
of the council of state has openly acted against the clear
dictates of the constitution, or advised any infringement
either of the same or of the other laws of the realm, or that
he had omitted to remonstrate against such a violation, or
caused and promoted it by wilfully concealing any information,
the committee shall order the attorney-general to institute
the proper proceedings against the guilty.
Article 107.
If the constitutional committee should find that any or all
the members of the council of state have not consulted the
real interest of the kingdom, or that any of the secretaries
of state have not performed his or their official duties with
impartiality, activity, and skill, the committee shall report
it to the estates, who, if they deem it necessary, may signify
to the king their wish of having those removed, who may thus
have given dissatisfaction. Questions to this effect may be
brought forward at the general meetings of the orders, and
even be proposed by any of the committees. These cannot,
however, be decided until the constitutional committee have
delivered their opinion.
Article 108.
The estates shall at every Diet appoint six individuals, two
of whom must be learned in the law, besides the
attorney-general, to watch over the liberty of the press.
These deputies shall be bound to give their opinion as to the
legality of publications, if such be requested by the authors.
These deputies shall be chosen by six electors out of every
order.
{587}
Article 109.
Diets may not last longer than three months from the time that
the king has informed the representatives of the state of the
revenues. Should, however, the estates at the expiration of
that time not have concluded their deliberations, they may
demand the Diet to be prolonged for another month, which the
king shall not refuse. If again, contrary to expectation, the
estates at the expiration of this term have not regulated the
civil list, the king shall dissolve the Diet, and taxation
continue in its former state till the next meeting of
representatives.
Article 110.
No representative shall be responsible for any opinion uttered
at meetings of the orders, or of the committees, unless by the
express permission of at least five-sixths of his own order:
nor can a representative be banished from the Diet. Should any
individual or body, either civil or military, endeavour to
offer violence to the estates, or to any individual
representative, or presume to interrupt and disturb their
deliberations, it shall be considered as an act of treason,
and it rests with the estates to take legal cognizance of such
an offence.
Article 111.
Should any representative, after having announced himself as
such, be insulted, either at the Diet or on his way to or from
the same, it shall be punished as a violation of the peace of
the king.
Article 112.
No official person may exercise his official authority (his
authority in that capacity) to influence the elections of
deputies to the Diet, under pain of losing his place.
Article 113.
Individuals elected for regulating the taxation shall not be
responsible for their lawful deeds in this their capacity.
Article 114.
The king shall leave the estates in undisturbed possession of
their liberties, privileges, and immunities. Modifications
which the prosperity of the realm may demand can only be done
with the general concurrence and consent of the estates and
the sanction of the king. Nor can any new privileges be
granted to one order, without the consent of the other, and
the sanction of the sovereign.
This we have confirmed by our names and seals, on the sixth
day of the month of June, in the year after the birth of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine.
On behalf of the Nobles, M. Ankarsvard.
On behalf of the Clergy, Jac. Ax. Lindblom.
On behalf of the Burghers, H. N. Schwan.
On behalf of the Peasantry, Lars Olsson, Speakers.
The above form of government we have not only acknowledged
Ourselves, but do also command all our faithful subjects to
obey it; in confirmation of which, we have thereto affixed our
manual signature and the seal of the realm. In the city of our
royal residence, Stockholm, on the sixth day of the month of
June, in the year after the birth of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and nine.
CHARLES.
----------CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.
After the Sonderbund secession and war of 1847 (see
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848), the task of drawing up a
Constitution for the Confederacy was confided to a committee
of fourteen members, and the work was finished on the 14th of
April, 1848. "The project was submitted to the Cantons, and
accepted at once by thirteen and a half; others joined during
the summer, and the new Constitution was finally promulgated
with the assent of all on the 12th September. Hence arose the
seventh and last phase of the Confederation, by the adoption
of a Federal Constitution for the whole of Switzerland, being
the first which was entirely the work of Swiss, without any
foreign influence, although its authors had studied that of
the United States. ... It was natural that, as in process of
time commerce and industry were developed, and as the
differences between the legislation of the various Cantons
became more apparent, a revision of the first really Swiss
Confederation should be necessary. This was proposed both in
1871 and 1872, but the partisans of a further centralization,
though successful in the Chambers, were defeated upon an
appeal to the popular vote on the 12th of May 1872, by a
majority of between five and six thousand, and by thirteen
Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no means
settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision more acceptable
to the partisans of cantonal independence, was adopted by the
people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013. The Cantons
were about two to one in favour of the revision, 14½ declaring
for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears date the 29th
May, 1874, and has since been added to and altered in certain
particulars."
Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation, chapter 1.
"Since 1848, ... Switzerland has been a federal state,
consisting of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and
six half states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents
an united front, while her internal policy allows to each
Canton a large amount of independence. ... The basis of all
legislative division is the Commune or Gemeinde; corresponding
in some slight degree to the English Parish. The Commune in
its legislative and administrative aspect or
'Einwohnergemeinde' is composed of all the inhabitants of a
Commune. It is self-governing and has the control of the local
police; it also administers all matters connected with
pauperism, education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the
fire brigade, the maintenance of public peace and
trusteeships. ... At the head of the Commune is the
Gemeinderath, or Communal Council, whose members are elected
from the inhabitants for a fixed period. It is presided over
by an Ammann, or Mayor, or President. ... Above the Commune on
the ascending scale comes the Canton. ... Each of the 19
Cantons and 6 half Cantons is a sovereign state, whose
privileges are nevertheless limited by the Federal
Constitution, particularly as regards legal and military
matters; the Constitution also defines the extent of each
Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed to secede and
join itself to another Canton. ... Legislative power is in the
hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of the word the
'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the Canton, who
have passed their 20th year and are not under disability from
crime or bankruptcy.
{588}
The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
voters. ... The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
political and administrative power of the Canton. It
corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. ... The
Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
... The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
together the Swiss Confederation."
P. Hauri, Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
(in Strickland's The Engadine).
The following text of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss
Confederation is a translation from parallel French and German
texts, by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard College.
It appeared originally in "Old South Leaflets," No. 18, and is
now reprinted under permission from Professor Hart, who has
most kindly revised his translation throughout and introduced
the later amendments, to July, 1893.
In the Name of Almighty God.
The Swiss Confederation, desiring to confirm the alliance of
the Confederates, to maintain and to promote the unity,
strength, and honor of the Swiss nation, has adopted the
Federal Constitution following:
Chapter I. General Provisions.
ARTICLE 1.
The peoples of the twenty-two sovereign Cantons of
Switzerland, united by this present alliance, viz.: Zurich,
Bern, Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (Upper and Lower),
Glarus, Zug, Freiburg, Solothurn, Basel (urban and rural),
Schaffhausen, Appenzell (the two Rhodes), St. Gallen, Grisons,
Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, and Geneva,
form in their entirety the Swiss Confederation.
ARTICLE 2.
The purpose of the Confederation is, to secure the
independence of the country against foreign nations, to
maintain peace and order within, to protect the liberty and
the rights of the Confederates, and to foster their common
welfare.
ARTICLE 3.
The Cantons are sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not
limited by the Federal Constitution; and, as such, they
exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the federal
government.
ARTICLE 4.
All Swiss are equal before the law. In Switzerland there are
neither political dependents, nor privileges of place, birth,
persons, or families.
ARTICLE 5.
The Confederation guarantees to the Cantons their territory,
their sovereignty, within the limits fixed by Article 3, their
Constitutions, the liberty and rights of the people, the
constitutional rights of citizens, and the rights and powers
which the people have conferred on those in authority.
ARTICLE 6.
The Cantons are bound to ask of the Confederation the guaranty
of their Constitutions. This guaranty is accorded, provided:
(a) that the Constitutions contain nothing contrary to the
provisions of the Federal Constitution.
(b) That they assure the exercise of political rights,
according to republican forms, representative or democratic.
(c) That they have been ratified by the people, and may be
amended whenever the majority of all the citizens demand it.
ARTICLE 7.
All separate alliances and all treaties of a political
character between the Cantons are forbidden. On the other hand
the Cantons have the right to make conventions among
themselves upon legislative, administrative or judicial
subjects; in all cases they shall bring such conventions to
the attention of the federal officials, who are authorized to
prevent their execution, if they contain anything contrary to
the Confederation, or to the rights of other Cantons. Should
such not be the case, the covenanting Cantons are authorized
to require the cooperation of the federal officials in
carrying out the convention.
ARTICLE 8.
The Confederation has the sole right of declaring war, of
making peace, and of concluding alliances and treaties with
foreign powers, particularly treaties relating to tariffs and
commerce.
ARTICLE 9.
By exception the Cantons preserve the right of concluding
treaties with foreign powers, respecting the administration of
public property, and border and police intercourse; but such
treaties shall contain nothing contrary to the Confederation
or to the rights of other Cantons.
ARTICLE 10.
Official intercourse between Cantons and foreign governments,
or their representatives, shall take place through the Federal
Council. Nevertheless, the Cantons may correspond directly
with the inferior officials and officers of a foreign State,
in regard to the subjects enumerated in the preceding article.
ARTICLE 11.
No military capitulations shall be made.
ARTICLE 12.
No members of the departments of the federal government, civil
and military officials of the Confederation, or federal
representatives or commissioners, shall receive from any
foreign government any pension, salary, title, gift, or
decoration. Such persons, already in possession of pensions,
titles, or decorations, must renounce the enjoyment of
pensions and the bearing of titles and decorations during
their term of office. Nevertheless, inferior officials may be
authorized by the Federal Council to continue in the receipt
of pensions. No decoration or title conferred by a foreign
government shall be borne in the federal army. No officer,
non-commissioned officer, or soldier shall accept such
distinction.
ARTICLE 13.
The Confederation has no right to keep up a standing army. No
Canton or Half-Canton shall, without the permission of the
federal government keep up a standing force of more than three
hundred men; the mounted police [gendarmerie] is not included
in this number.
ARTICLE 14.
In case of differences arising between Cantons, the States
shall abstain from violence and from arming themselves; they
shall submit to the decision to be taken upon such differences
by the Confederation.
ARTICLE 15.
In case of sudden danger of foreign attack, the authorities of
the Cantons threatened shall request the aid of other members
of the Confederation and shall immediately notify the federal
government; the subsequent action of the latter shall not
thereby be precluded. The Cantons summoned are bound to give
aid. The expenses shall be borne by the Confederation.
{589}
Article 16.
In case of internal disturbance, or if the danger is
threatened by another Canton, the authorities of the Canton
threatened shall give immediate notice to the Federal Council,
in order that that body may take the measures necessary,
within the limits of its power (Article 102, §§ 3, 10, 11), or
may summon the Federal Assembly. In extreme cases the
authorities of the Canton are authorized, while giving
immediate notice to the Federal Council, to ask the aid of
other Cantons, which are bound to afford such aid. If the
executive of the Canton is unable to call for aid, the federal
authority having the power may, and if the safety of
Switzerland is endangered shall, intervene without
requisition. In case of federal intervention, the federal
authorities shall take care that the provisions of Article 5
be observed. The expenses shall be borne by the Canton asking
aid or occasioning federal intervention, except when the
Federal Assembly otherwise decides on account of special
circumstances.
Article 17.
In the cases mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, every Canton is
bound to afford undisturbed passage for the troops. The troops
shall immediately be placed under federal command.
Article 18.
Every Swiss is bound to perform military service. Soldiers who
lose their lives or suffer permanent injury to their health,
in consequence of federal service, are entitled to aid from
the Confederation for themselves or their families, in case of
need. Each soldier shall receive without expense his first
equipment, clothing, and arms. The weapon remains in the hands
of the soldier, under conditions which shall be prescribed by
federal legislation. The Confederation shall enact uniform
provisions as to an exemption tax.
Article 19.
The federal army is composed:
(a) Of the cantonal military corps.
(b) Of all Swiss who do not belong to such military corps, but
are nevertheless liable to military service.
The Confederation exercises control over the army and the
material of war provided by law. In cases of danger, the
Confederation has also the exclusive and direct control of men
not included in the federal army, and of all other military
resources of the Cantons. The Cantons have authority over the
military forces of their territory, so far as this right is
not limited by the Federal Constitution or laws.
Article 20.
The laws on the organization of the army are passed by the
Confederation. The enforcement of military laws in the Cantons
is intrusted to the cantonal officials, within limits which
shall be fixed by federal legislation, and under the
supervision of the Confederation. Military instruction of
every kind pertains to the Confederation. The same applies to
the arming of troops. The furnishing and maintenance of
clothing and equipment is within the power of the Cantons; but
the Cantons shall be credited with the expenses therefor,
according to a regulation to be established by federal
legislation.
Article 21.
So far as military reasons do not prevent, bodies of troops
shall be formed out of the soldiers of the same Cantons. The
composition of these bodies of troops, the maintenance of
their effective strength, the appointment and promotion of
officers of these bodies of troops, belong to the Cantons,
subject to general provisions which shall be established by
the Confederation.
Article 22.
On payment of a reasonable indemnity, the Confederation has
the right to use or acquire drill-grounds and buildings
intended for military purposes, within the Cantons, together
with the appurtenances thereof. The terms of the indemnity
shall be settled by federal legislation.
Article 23.
The Confederation may construct at its own expense, or may aid
by subsidies, public works which concern Switzerland or a
considerable part of the country. For this purpose it may
expropriate property, on payment of a reasonable indemnity.
Further enactments upon this matter shall be made by federal
legislation. The Federal Assembly may forbid public works
which endanger the military interests of the Confederation.
Article 24.
The Confederation has the right of superintendence over dike
and forest police in the upper mountain regions. It may
cooperate in the straightening and embankment of torrents as
well as in the afforesting of the districts in which they
rise. It may prescribe the regulations necessary to assure the
maintenance of these works, and the preservation of existing
forests.
Article 25.
The Confederation has power to make legislative enactments for
the regulation of the right of fishing and hunting,
particularly with a view to the preservation of the large game
in the mountains, as well as for the protection of birds
useful to agriculture and forestry.
Article 26.
Legislation upon the construction and operation of railroads
is in the province of the Confederation.
Article 27.
The Confederation has the right to establish, besides the
existing Polytechnic School, a Federal University and other
institutions of higher instruction, or to subsidize
institutions of such nature. The Cantons provide for primary
instruction, which shall be sufficient, and shall be placed
exclusively under the direction of the secular authority. It
is compulsory and, in the public schools, free. The public
schools shall be such that they may be frequented by the
adherents of all religious sects, without any offense to their
freedom of conscience or of belief. The Confederation shall
take the necessary measures against such Cantons as shall not
fulfill these duties.
Article 28.
The customs are in the province of the Confederation. It may
levy export and import duties.
Article 29.
The collection of the federal customs shall be regulated
according to the following principles:
1. Duties ou imports:
(a) Materials necessary for the manufactures and agriculture
of the country shall be taxed as low as possible.
(b) It shall be the same with the necessities of life.
(c) Luxuries shall be subjected to the highest duties.
Unless there are imperative reasons to the contrary, these
principles shall be observed also in the conclusion of
treaties of commerce with foreign powers.
2. The duties on exports shall also be as low as possible.
3. The customs legislation shall include suitable provisions
for the continuance of commercial and market intercourse
across the frontier. The above provisions do not prevent the
Confederation from making temporary exceptional provisions,
under extraordinary circumstances.
{590}
Article 30.
The proceeds of the customs belong to the Confederation. The
indemnity ceases which hitherto has been paid to the Cantons
for the redemption of customs, for road and bridge tolls,
customs duties and other like dues. By exception, and on
account of their international alpine roads, the Cantons of
Uri, Grisons, Ticino, and Valais receive an annual indemnity,
which, considering all the circumstances, is fixed as follows:
Uri, 80,000 francs. Grisons, 200,000 francs. Ticino, 200,000
francs. Valais, 50,000 francs. The Cantons of Uri and Ticino
shall receive in addition, for clearing the snow from the
Saint Gotthard road, an annual indemnity of 40,000 francs, so
long as that road shall not be replaced by a railroad.
Article 31.
The freedom of trade and of industry is guaranteed throughout
the whole extent of the Confederation. The following subjects
are excepted:
(a) The salt and gunpowder monopoly, the federal customs,
import duties on wines and other spirituous liquors, and other
taxes on consumption expressly permitted by the Confederation,
according to article 32.
(b) [Added by Amendment of December 22, 1885.] The
manufacture and sale of alcohol, under Article 32 (ii).
(c) [Added by Amendment of December 22, 1885.] Drinking
places, and the retail trade in spirituous liquors; but
nevertheless the Cantons may by legislation subject the
business of keeping drinking places, and the retail trade in
spirituous liquors, to such restrictions as are required for
the public welfare.
(d) [Originally (b)] Measures of sanitary police against
epidemics and cattle diseases.
(e) [Originally (c)] Provisions in regard to the exercise of
trades and manufactures, in regard to taxes imposed thereon,
and in regard to the police of the roads. These provisions
shall not contain anything contrary to the principle of
freedom of trade and manufacture.
Article 32.
The Cantons are authorized to collect the import duties on
wines and other spirituous liquors, provided in Article 31
(a), always under the following restrictions:
(a) The collection of these import duties shall in no wise
impede transportation: commerce shall be obstructed as little
as possible and shall not be burdened with any other dues.
(b) If the articles imported for consumption are reexported
from the Canton, the duties paid on importation shall be
refunded, without further charges.
(c) Products of Swiss origin shall be less burdened than those
of foreign countries.
(d) The existing import duties on wines and other spirituous
liquors of Swiss origin shall not be increased by the Cantons
which already levy them. Such duties shall not be established
upon such articles by Cantons which do not at present collect
them.
(e) The laws and ordinances of the Cantons on the collection
of import duties shall, before their going into effect, be
submitted to the federal government for approval, in order
that it may, if necessary, cause the enforcement of the
preceding provisions. All the import duties now levied by the
Cantons, as well as the similar duties levied by the Communes,
shall cease without indemnity, at the end of the year 1890.
Article 32 (ii).
[Amendment of December 22, 1885.]
The Confederation is authorized by legislation to make
regulations for the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In this
legislation those products which are intended for exportation,
or which have been subjected to a process excluding them from
use as a beverage, shall be subjected to no tax. Distillation
of wine, fruit, and their by-products, of gentian root,
juniper berries, and similar products, is not subject to
federal legislation as to manufacture or tax. After the
cessation of the import duties on spirituous liquors, provided
for in Article 32 of the Constitution, the trade in liquors
not distilled shall not be subjected by the Cantons to any
special taxes or to other limitations than those necessary for
protection against adulterated or noxious beverages.
Nevertheless, the powers of the Cantons, defined in Article
31, are retained over the keeping of drinking places, and the
sale at retail of quantities less than two liters. The net
proceeds resulting from taxation on the sale of alcohol belong
to the Cantons in which the tax is levied. The net proceeds to
the Confederation from the internal manufacture of alcohol,
and the corresponding addition to the duty on imported
alcohol, are divided among all the Cantons, in proportion to
the actual population as ascertained from time to time by the
next preceding federal census. Out of the receipts therefrom
the Cantons must expend not less than one tenth in combating
drunkenness in its causes and effects. [For additional
articles of this Amendment see Temporary Provisions, Article
6, at the end of this Constitution. ]
Article 33.
The Cantons may require proofs of competency from those who
desire to practice a liberal profession. Provision shall be
made by federal legislation by which such persons may obtain
certificates of competency which shall be valid throughout the
Confederation..
Article 34.
The Confederation has power to enact uniform provisions as to
the labor of children in factories, and as to the duration of
labor fixed for adults therein, and as to the protection of
workmen against the operation of unhealthy and dangerous
manufactures. The transactions of emigration agents and of
organizations for insurance, not instituted by the State, are
subject to federal supervision and legislation.
Article 34 (ii).
[Amendment of December 17, 1890.]
The Confederation shall by law provide for insurance against
sickness and accident, with due regard for existing
sick-benefit funds. The Confederation may require
participation therein, either by all persons or by particular
classes of the population.
Article 35.
The opening of gaming houses is forbidden. Those which now
exist shall be closed December 31, 1877. The concessions which may
have been granted or renewed since the beginning of the year
1871 are declared invalid. The Confederation may also take
necessary measures concerning lotteries.
Article 36.
The posts and telegraphs in all Switzerland are controlled by
the Confederation. The proceeds of the posts and telegraphs
belong to the federal treasury. The rates shall, for all parts
of Switzerland, be fixed according to the same principle and
as fairly as possible. Inviolable secrecy of letters and
telegrams is guaranteed.
Article 37.
The Confederation exercises general oversight over those roads
and bridges in the maintenance of which it is interested. The
sums due to the Cantons mentioned in Article 30, on account of
their international alpine roads, shall be retained by the
federal government if such roads are not kept by them in
suitable condition.
{591}
Article 38.
The Confederation exercises all the exclusive rights
pertaining to coinage. It has the sole right of coining money.
It establishes the monetary system, and may enact provisions,
if necessary, for the rate of exchange of foreign coins.
[Article 39.
(Abrogated by the article following it).
The Confederation has the power to make by law general
provisions for the issue and redemption of bank notes. But it
shall not create any monopoly for the issue of bank notes, nor
make such notes a legal tender.]
Article 39.
[Substitute for former Article 39, adopted October 18,
1891.] The Confederation has the exclusive power to issue bank
notes and other like currency. The Confederation may exercise
the exclusive power over the issue of bank notes through a
National Bank carried on under a special department of
administration; or it may assign the right to a central joint
stock bank hereafter to be created, which shall be
administered under the coöperation and supervision of the
Confederation; but the privilege to take over the bank, by
paying a compensation, shall be retained. The bank possessed
of the exclusive right to issue notes shall have for its chief
function to regulate the circulation of money in Switzerland
and to facilitate exchange. To the Cantons shall be paid at
least two-thirds of the net profits of the bank beyond a
reasonable interest or a reasonable dividend to the
stockholders, and the necessary transfers to the reserve fund.
The bank and its branches shall not be subjected to taxation
by the Cantons. The Confederation shall not make bank notes
and other like currency legal tender, except in urgent need in
time of war. The principal office of the bank and the details
of its organization, as well as in general the carrying into
effect this article, shall be determined by federal law.
Article 40.
The Confederation fixes the standard of weights and measures.
The Cantons, under the supervision of the Confederation,
[shall] enforce the laws relating thereto.
Article 41.
The manufacture and the sale of gunpowder throughout
Switzerland pertain exclusively to the Confederation. Powders
used for blasting and not suitable for shooting are not
included in the monopoly.
Article 42.
The expenditures of the Confederation are met as follows:
(a) Out of the income from federal property.
(b) Out of the proceeds of the federal customs levied at the
Swiss frontier.
(c) Out of the proceeds of the posts and telegraphs.
(d) Out of the proceeds of the powder monopoly.
(e) Out of half of the gross receipts from the tax on military
exemptions levied by the Cantons.
(f) Out of the contributions of the Cantons, which shall be
determined by federal legislation, with special reference to
their wealth and taxable resources.
Article 43.
Every citizen of a Canton is a Swiss citizen. As such he may
participate, in the place where he is domiciled, in all
federal elections and popular votes, after having duly proven
his qualification as a voter. No person can exercise political
rights in more than one Canton. The Swiss settled as a citizen
outside his native Canton enjoys in the place where he is
domiciled, all the rights of the citizens of the Canton,
including all the rights of the communal citizen.
Participation in municipal and corporate property, and the
right to vote upon purely municipal affairs, are excepted from
such rights, unless the Canton by legislation has otherwise
provided. In cantonal and communal affairs, he gains the right
to vote after a residence of three months. Cantonal laws
relating to the right of Swiss citizens to settle outside the
Cantons in which they were born, and to vote on communal
questions, are submitted for the approval of the Federal
Council.
Article 44.
No Canton shall expel from its territory one of its own
citizens, nor deprive him of his rights, whether acquired by
birth or settlement. [Origine ou cité.] Federal legislation
shall fix the conditions upon which foreigners may be
naturalized, as well as those upon which a Swiss may give up
his citizenship in order to obtain naturalization in a foreign
country.
Article 45.
Every Swiss citizen has the right to settle anywhere in Swiss
territory, on condition of submitting a certificate of origin,
or a similar document. By exception, settlement may be refused
to or withdrawn from, those who, in consequence of a penal
conviction, are not entitled to civil rights. In addition,
settlement may be withdrawn from those who have been
repeatedly punished for serious offenses, and also from those
who permanently come upon the charge of public charity, and to
whom their Commune or Canton of origin, as the case may be,
refuses sufficient succor, after they have been officially
asked to grant it. In the Cantons where the poor are relieved
in their place of residence the permission to settle, if it
relates to citizens of the Canton, may be coupled with the
condition that they shall be able to work, and that they shall
not, in their former domicile in the Canton of origin, have
permanently become a charge on public charity. Every expulsion
on account of poverty must be approved by the government of
the Canton of domicile, and previously announced to the
government of the Canton of origin. A Canton in which a Swiss
establishes his domicile may not require security, nor impose
any special obligations for such establishment. In like manner
the Communes cannot require from Swiss domiciled in their
territory other contributions than those which they require
from their own subjects. A federal law shall establish the
maximum fee to be paid the Chancery for a permit to settle.
Article 46.
Persons settled in Switzerland are, as a rule, subjected to
the jurisdiction and legislation of their domicile, in all
that pertains to their personal status and property rights.
The Confederation shall by law make the provisions necessary
for the application of this principle and for the prevention
of double taxation of a citizen.
Article 47.
A federal law shall establish the distinction between
settlement and temporary residence, and shall at the same time
make the regulations to which Swiss temporary residents shall
be subjected as to their political rights and their civil
rights.
Article 48.
A federal law shall provide for the regulation of the expenses
of the illness and burial of indigent persons amenable to one
Canton, who have fallen ill or died in another Canton.
{592}
Article 49.
Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable. No person can
be constrained to take part in a religious society, to attend
religious instruction, to perform a religious rite, or to
incur penalties of any kind whatever on account of religious
opinion. The person who exercises the parent's or guardian's
authority has the right, conformably to the principles above
stated, to regulate the religious education of children up to
the age of sixteen completed years. The exercise of civil or
political rights shall not be abridged by any provisions or
conditions whatever of an ecclesiastical or religious kind. No
person shall, on account of a religious belief, release
himself from the accomplishment of a civil duty. No person is
bound to pay taxes of which the proceeds are specifically
appropriated to the actual expenses of the worship of a
religious body to which he does not belong. The details of the
carrying out of this principle are reserved for federal
legislation.
Article 50.
The free exercise of religious worship is guaranteed within
the limits compatible with public order and good morals. The
Cantons and the Confederation may take suitable measures for
the preservation of public order and of peace between the
members of different religious bodies, and also against
encroachments of ecclesiastical authorities upon the rights of
citizens and of the State. Contests in public and private law,
which arise out of the formation or the division of religious
bodies, may be brought by appeal before the competent federal
authorities. No bishopric shall be created upon Swiss
territory without the consent of the Confederation.
Article 51.
The order of the Jesuits, and the societies affiliated with
them, shall not be received into any part of Switzerland; and
all action in church and school is forbidden to its members.
This prohibition may be extended also, by federal ordinance,
to other religious orders, the action of which is dangerous to
the state or disturbs the peace between sects.
Article 52.
The foundation of new convents or religious orders, and the
reestablishment of those which have been suppressed, are
forbidden.
Article 53.
The civil status and the keeping of records thereof is subject
to the civil authority. The Confederation shall by law enact
detailed provisions upon this subject. The control of places o
burial is subject to the civil authority. It shall take care
that every deceased person may be decently interred.
Article 54.
The right of marriage is placed under the protection of the
Confederation. No limitation upon marriage shall be based upon
sectarian grounds, nor upon the poverty of either of the
contractants, nor on their conduct, nor on any other
consideration of good order. A marriage contracted in a Canton
or in a foreign country, conformably to the law which is there
in force, shall be recognized as valid throughout the
Confederation. By marriage the wife acquires the citizenship
of her husband. Children born before the marriage are made
legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents. No tax
upon admission or similar tax shall be levied upon either
party to a marriage.
Article 55.
The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless the
Cantons by law enact the measures necessary for the
suppression of abuses. Such laws are submitted for the
approval of the Federal Council. The Confederation may enact
penalties for the suppression of press offenses directed
against it or its authorities.
Article 56.
Citizens have the right of forming associations, provided that
there be in the purpose of such associations, or in the means
which they employ, nothing unlawful or dangerous to the state.
The Cantons by law take the measures necessary for the
suppression of abuses.
Article 57.
The right of petition is guaranteed.
Article 58.
No person shall be deprived of his constitutional judge.
Therefore no extraordinary tribunal shall be established.
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished.
Article 59.
Suits for personal claims against a solvent debtor having a
domicile in Switzerland, must be brought before the judge of
his domicile; in consequence, his property outside the Canton
in which he is domiciled may not be attached in suits for
personal claims. Nevertheless, with reference to foreigners,
the provisions of international treaties shall not thereby be
affected. Imprisonment for debt is abolished.
Article 60.
All the Cantons are bound to treat the citizens of the other
confederated States like those of their own State in
legislation and in all judicial proceedings.
Article 61.
Civil judgments definitely pronounced in any Canton may be
executed anywhere in Switzerland.
Article 62.
The exit duty on property [traite foraine] is abolished in the
interior of Switzerland, as well as the right of redemption
[droit de retrait] by citizens of one Canton against those of
other confederated States.
Article 63.
The exit duty on property is abolished as respects foreign
countries, provided reciprocity be observed.
Article 64.
The Confederation has power to make laws:
On legal competency.
On all legal questions relating to commerce and to
transactions affecting chattels (law of commercial
obligations, including commercial law and law of exchange).
On literary and artistic copyright.
On the protection of new patterns and forms, and of inventions
which are represented in models and are capable of industrial
application. [Amendment of December 20, 1887.]
On the legal collection of debts and on bankruptcy. The
administration of justice remains with the Cantons, save as
affected by the powers of the Federal Court.
Article 65.
[(Abrogated by Amendment of June 20, 1879.) The
death penalty is abolished; nevertheless the provisions of
military law in time of war shall be observed. Corporal
punishment is abolished.]
Article 65.
[Amendment of June 20,1879.]
No death penalty shall be pronounced for a political crime.
Corporal punishment is abolished.
Article 66.
The Confederation by law fixes the limits within which a Swiss
citizen may be deprived of his political rights.
Article 67.
The Confederation by law provides for the extradition of
accused persons from one Canton to another; nevertheless,
extradition shall not be made obligatory for political
offenses and offenses of the press.
Article 68.
Measures are taken by federal law for the incorporation of
persons without country (Heimathlosen), and for the prevention
of new cases of that nature.
Article 69.
Legislation concerning measures of sanitary police against
epidemic and cattle diseases, causing a common danger, is
included in the powers of the Confederation.
Article 70.
The Confederation has power to expel from its territory
foreigners who endanger the internal or external safety of
Switzerland.
{593}
Chapter II.
Article 71.
With the reservation of the rights of the people and of the
Cantons (Articles 89 and 121), the supreme authority of the
Confederation is exercised by the Federal Assembly, [Assemblée
fédérale; Bundesversammlung] which consists of two sections or
councils, to wit:
(A) The National Council.
(B) The Council of States.
Article 72.
The National Council [Conseil National; Nationalrath] is
composed of representatives of the Swiss people, chosen in the
ratio of one member for each 20,000 persons of the total
population. Fractions of upwards of 10,000 persons are
reckoned as 20,000. Every Canton, and in the divided Cantons
every Half-Canton, chooses at least one representative.
Article 73.
The elections for the National Council are direct. They are
held in federal electoral districts, which in no case shall be
formed out of parts of different Cantons.
Article 74.
Every Swiss who has completed twenty years of age, and who in
addition is not excluded from the rights of a voter by the
legislation of the Canton in which he is domiciled, has the
right to vote in elections and popular votes. Nevertheless,
the Confederation by law may establish uniform regulations for
the exercise of such right.
Article 75.
Every lay Swiss citizen who has the right to vote is eligible
for membership in the National Council.
Article 76.
The National Council is chosen for three years, and entirely
renewed at each general election.
Article 77.
Representatives to the Council of States, members of the
Federal Council, and officials appointed by that Council,
shall not at the same time be members of the National Council.
Article 78.
The National Council chooses out of its own number, for each
regular or extraordinary session, a President and a
Vice-President. A member who has held the office of President
during a regular session is ineligible either as President, or
Vice-President at the next regular session. The same member
may not be Vice-President during two consecutive regular
sessions. When the votes are equally divided the President has
a casting vote; in elections he votes in the same manner as
other members.
Article 79.
The members of the National Council receive a compensation out
of the federal treasury.
Article 80.
The Council of States [Conseil des États; Ständerath] consists
of forty-four representatives of the Cantons. Each Canton
appoints two representatives; in the divided Cantons, each
Half-State chooses one.
Article 81.
The members of the National Council and those of the Federal
Council may not be representatives in the Council of States.
Article 82.
The Council of States chooses out of its own number for each
regular or extraordinary session a President and a
Vice-President. Neither the President nor the Vice-President
can be chosen from among the representatives of the Canton
from which the President has been chosen for the regular
session next preceding. Representatives of the same Canton
cannot occupy the position of Vice-President during two
consecutive regular sessions. When the votes are equally
divided the President has a casting vote; in elections he
votes in the same manner as the other members.
Article 83.
Representatives in the Council of States receive a
compensation from the Cantons.
Article 84.
The National Council and the Council of States consider all
the subjects which the present Constitution places within the
competence of the Confederation, and which are not assigned to
any other federal authority.
Article 85.
The subjects within the competence of the two Councils are
particularly the following:
1. Laws on the organization of and election of federal
authorities.
2. Laws and ordinances on subjects which by the Constitution
are placed within the federal competence.
3. The salary and compensation of members of the federal
governing bodies and of the Federal Chancery; the creation of
federal offices and the determination of salaries therefor.
4. The election of the Federal Council, of the Federal Court,
and of the Chancellor, and also of the Commander-in-chief of
the federal army. The Confederation may by law assign to the
Federal Assembly other powers of election or of confirmation.
5. Alliances and treaties with foreign powers, and also the
approval of treaties made by the Cantons between themselves or
with foreign powers; nevertheless the treaties made by the
Cantons shall be brought before the Federal Assembly only in
case the Federal Council or another Canton protests.
6. Measures for external safety and also for the maintenance
of the independence and neutrality of Switzerland; the
declaration of war and the conclusion of peace.
7. The guaranty of the Constitution and of the territory of
the Cantons; intervention in consequence of such guaranty;
measures for the internal safety of Switzerland, for the
maintenance of peace and order; amnesty and pardon.
8. Measures for the preservation of the Constitution, for
carrying out the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, and
for fulfilling federal obligations.
9. The power of controlling the federal army.
10. The determination of the annual budget, the audit of
public accounts, and federal ordinances authorizing loans.
11. The superintendence of federal administration and of
federal courts.
12. Protests against the decisions of the Federal Council upon
administrative conflicts. (Article 113.)
13. Conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities.
14. The amendment of the federal Constitution.
Article 86.
The two Councils assemble annually in regular session upon a
day to be fixed by the standing orders. They are convened in
extra session by the Federal Council upon the request either
of one fourth of the members of the National Council, or of
five Cantons.
Article 87.
In either Council a quorum is a majority of the total number
of its members.
Article 88.
In the National Council and in the Council of States a
majority of those voting is required.
Article 89.
Federal laws, enactments, and resolutions shall be passed only
by the agreement of the two Councils. Federal laws shall be
submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people, if the
demand is made by 30,000 voters or by eight Cantons. The same
principle applies to federal resolutions which have a general
application, and which are not of an urgent nature.
Article 90.
The Confederation shall by law establish the forms and
intervals to be observed in popular votes.
{594}
Article 91.
Members of either Council vote without instructions.
Article 92.
Each Council takes action separately. But in the case of the
elections specified in Article 85, § 4, of pardons, or of
deciding a conflict of jurisdiction (Art. 85, § 13), the two
Councils meet in joint session, under the direction of the
President of the National Council, and a decision is made by
the majority of the members of both Councils present and
voting.
Article 93.
Measures may originate in either Council, and may be
introduced by any of their members. The Cantons may by
correspondence exercise the same right.
Article 94.
As a rule, the sittings of the Councils are public.
Article 95.
The supreme direction and executive authority of the
Confederation is exercised by a Federal Council [Conseil
fédéral; Bundesrath], composed of seven members.
Article 96.
The members of the Federal Council are chosen for three years
by the Councils in joint session from among all the Swiss
citizens eligible to the National Council. But not more than
one member of the Federal Council shall be chosen from the
same Canton. The Federal Council is chosen anew after each
election of the National Council. Vacancies which occur in the
course of the three years are filled at the first ensuing
session of the Federal Assembly, for the remainder of the term
of office.
Article 97.
The members of the Federal Council shall not, during their
term of office, occupy any other office, either in the service
of the Confederation or in a Canton, or follow any other
pursuit, or exercise a profession.
Article 98.
The Federal Council is presided over by the President of the
Confederation. There is a Vice-President. The President of the
Confederation and the Vice-President of the Federal Council
are chosen for one year by the Federal Assembly from among the
members of the Council. The retiring President shall not be
chosen as President or Vice-President for the year ensuing.
The same member shall not hold the office of Vice-President
during two consecutive years.
Article 99.
The President of the Confederation and the other members of
the Federal Council receive an annual salary from the federal
treasury.
Article 100.
A quorum of the Federal Council consists of four members.
Article 101.
The members of the Federal Council have the right to speak but
not to vote in either house of the Federal Assembly, and also
the right to make motions on the subject under consideration.
Article 102.
The powers and the duties of the Federal Council, within the
limits of this Constitution, are particularly the following:
1. It conducts federal affairs, conformably to the laws and
resolutions of the Confederation.
2. It takes care that the Constitution, federal laws and
ordinances, and also the provisions of federal concordats, be
observed; upon its own initiative or upon complaint, it takes
measures necessary to cause these instruments to be observed,
unless the consideration of redress be among the subjects
which should be brought before the Federal Court, according to
Article 113.
3. It takes care that the guaranty of the cantonal
constitutions be observed.
4. It introduces bills or resolutions into the Federal
Assembly, and gives its opinion upon the proposals submitted
to it by the Councils or the Cantons.
5. It executes the laws and resolutions of the Confederation
and the judgments of the Federal Court, and also the
compromises or decisions in arbitration upon disputes between
Cantons.
6. It makes those appointments which are not assigned to the
Federal Assembly, Federal Court, or other authority.
7. It examines the treaties made by Cantons with each other,
or with foreign powers, and approves them, if proper. (Article
85, § 5.)
8. It watches over the external interests of the
Confederation, particularly the maintenance of its
international relations, and is, in general, intrusted with
foreign relations.
9. It watches over the external safety of Switzerland, over
the maintenance of independence and neutrality.
10. It watches over the internal safety of the Confederation,
over the maintenance of peace and order.
11. In cases of urgency, and when the Federal Assembly is not
in session, the Federal Council has power to raise the
necessary troops and to employ them, with the reservation that
it shall immediately summon the Councils if the number of
troops exceeds two thousand men, or if they remain in arms
more than three weeks.
12. It administers the military establishment of the
Confederation, and all other branches of administration
committed to the Confederation.
13. It examines such laws and ordinances of the Cantons as
must be submitted for its approval; it exercises supervision
over such departments of the cantonal administration as are
placed under its control.
14. It administers the finances of the Confederation,
introduces the budget, and submits accounts of receipts and
expenses.
15. It supervises the conduct of an the officials and
employees of the federal administration.
16. It submits to the Federal Assembly at each regular session
an account of its administration and a report of the condition
of the Confederation, internal as well as external, and calls
attention to the measures which it deems desirable for the
promotion of the general welfare. It also makes special
reports when the Federal Assembly or either Council requires
it.
Article 103.
The business of the Federal Council is distributed by
departments among its members. This distribution has the
purpose only of facilitating the examination and despatch of
business; decisions emanate from the Federal Council as a
single authority.
Article 104.
The Federal Council and its departments have power to call in
experts on special subjects.
Article 105.
A Federal Chancery [Chancellerie fédérale; Bundeskanzlei], at
the head of which is placed the Chancellor of the
Confederation, conducts the secretary's business for the
Federal Assembly and the Federal Council. The Chancellor is
chosen by the Federal Assembly for the term of three years, at
the same time as the Federal Council. The Chancery is under
the special supervision of the Federal Council. A federal law
shall provide for the organization of the Chancery.
Article 106.
There shall be a Federal Court [Tribunal fédéral;
Bundesgericht] for the administration of justice in federal
concerns. There shall be, moreover, a jury for criminal cases.
(Article 112.)
{595}
Article 107.
The members and alternates of the Federal Court shall be
chosen by the Federal Assembly, which shall take care that all
three national languages are represented therein. A law shall
establish the organization of the Federal Court and of its
sections, the number of judges and alternates, their term of
office, and their salary.
Article 108.
Any Swiss citizen eligible to the National Council may be
chosen to the Federal Court. The members of the Federal
Assembly and of the Federal Council, and officials appointed
by those authorities, shall not at the same time belong to the
Federal Court. The members of the Federal Court shall not,
during their term of office, occupy any other office, either
in the service of the Confederation or in a Canton, nor engage
in any other pursuit, nor practice a profession.
Article 109.
The Federal Court organizes its own Chancery and appoints the
officials thereof.
Article 110.
The Federal Court has jurisdiction in civil suits:
1. Between the Confederation and the Cantons.
2. Between the Confederation on one part and corporations or
individuals on the other part, when such corporations or
individuals are plaintiffs, and when the amount involved is of
a degree of importance to be determined by federal
legislation.
3. Between Cantons.
4. Between Cantons on one part and corporations or individuals
on the other part, when one of the parties demands it, and the
amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
by federal legislation. It further has jurisdiction in suits
concerning the status of persons not subjects of any
government (heimathlosat), and the conflicts which arise
between Communes of different Cantons respecting the right of
local citizenship. [Droit de cité.]
Article 111.
The Federal Court is bound to give judgment in other cases
when both parties agree to abide by its decision, and when the
amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined
by federal legislation.
Article 112.
The Federal Court, assisted by a jury to decide upon questions
of fact, has criminal jurisdiction in:
1. Cases of high treason against the Confederation, of
rebellion or violence against federal authorities.
2. Crimes and misdemeanors against the law of nations.
3, Political crimes and misdemeanors which are the cause or
the result of disturbances which occasion armed federal
intervention.
4. Cases against officials appointed by a federal authority,
where such authority relegates them to the Federal Court.
Article 113.
The Federal Court further has jurisdiction:
1. Over conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities
on one part and cantonal authorities on the other part.
2. Disputes between Cantons, when such disputes are upon
questions of public law.
3. Complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of
citizens, and complaints of individuals for the violation of
concordats or treaties. Conflicts of administrative
jurisdiction are reserved, and are to be settled in a manner
prescribed by federal legislation. In all the fore-mentioned
cases the Federal Court shall apply the laws passed by the
Federal Assembly and those resolutions of the Assembly which
have a general import. It shall in like manner conform to
treaties which shall have been ratified by the Federal
Assembly.
Article 114.
Besides the cases specified in Articles 110, 112, and 113, the
Confederation may by law place other matters within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Court; in particular, it may give
to that court powers intended to insure the uniform
application of the laws provided for in Article 64.
Article 115.
All that relates to the location of the authorities of the
Confederation is a subject for federal legislation.
Article 116.
The three principal languages spoken in Switzerland, German,
French, and Italian, are national languages of the
Confederation.
Article 117.
The officials of the Confederation are responsible for their
conduct in office. A federal law shall enforce this
responsibility.
Chapter III.
(These four articles abrogated by the four articles following
them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at
any time be amended.
[Article 119.
Amendment is secured through the forms required for passing
federal laws.]
[Article 120.
When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
resolution for amendment of the Federal Constitution and the
other Council does not agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss
voters demand amendment, the question whether the Federal
Constitution ought to be amended is, in either case, submitted
to a vote of the Swiss people, voting yes or no. If in either
case the majority of the Swiss citizens who vote pronounce in
the affirmative, there shall be a new election of both
Councils for the purpose of preparing amendments.]
[Article 121.
The amended Federal Constitution shalt be in force when it
has been adopted by the majority of Swiss citizens who take
part in the vote thereon and by a majority of the States. In
making up a majority of the States the vote of a Half-Canton
is counted as half a vote. The result of the popular vote in
each Canton is considered to be the vote of the State.]
Article 118.
[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The Federal Constitution
may at any time be amended as a whole or in part.
Article 119.
[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] General revision is
secured through the forms required for passing the federal
laws.
Article 120.
When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a
resolution for general revision and the other Council does not
agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss voters demand general
revision the question whether there shall be such a revision
must, in either case, be submitted to the popular vote of the
Swiss people. If, in either case, the majority of the Swiss
citizens who vote on the question pronounce in the
affirmative, there shall be a new election of both Councils
for the purpose of preparing a general revision.
Article 121.
[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] Specific amendments may be
brought forward either through a Proposition of the People
[Volksanregung] (Initiative) or by Federal legislation. A
Proposition of the People means a demand supported by fifty
thousand Swiss voters, either for suspension, repeal, or
alteration of specified articles of the Federal Constitution.
If by means of the method of Proposition of the People several
different subjects are brought forward either for alteration
or for incorporation into the Federal Constitution, each one
of those separate subjects must be presented in a separate
demand for a popular vote [Initintivbegehren]. The demand for
a popular vote may take the form either of a request in
general terms, or of a definite draft. If such a demand be
made in the form of a request in general terms and the
Councils of the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the said
Councils shall thereupon prepare a specific amendment of the
purport indicated by those asking amendment; and such specific
amendment shall be submitted to the people and to the states
for their acceptance or rejection. In case the Councils of the
Federal Assembly do not agree thereto, the question of
specific amendment shall then be subjected to the people for a
popular vote; and in case the majority of the Swiss voters
vote therefor, an amendment of the purport indicated by the
vote of the people shall then be prepared by the Federal
Assembly. In case the request shall take the form of a
specific draft and the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the
draft is then to be submitted to the people and the States for
acceptance or rejection. If the Federal Assembly shall not
agree thereto it may either prepare a substitute draft for
itself, or it may propose the rejection of the proposition.
The proposition to reject such substitute draft or proposition
shall be submitted to the vote of the people and of the States
at the same time with the general Proposition of the People.
{596}
Article 122.
[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The procedure upon the
Proposition of the People and the popular votes concerning
amendment of the Federal Constitution, shall be regulated in
detail by a Federal Law.
Article 123.
[Amendment of July 5,1891.] The amended Federal
Constitution or the specific amendments proposed, as the case
may be, shall be in force when adopted by the majority of the
Swiss citizens who take part in the vote thereon and by a
majority of the Cantons. In making up the majority of the
States the vote of a half of each Canton is counted as half a
vote. The result of the popular vote in each Canton is
considered to be the vote of the state.
Temporary Provisions.
Article 1.
The proceeds of the posts and customs shall be divided upon
the present basis, until such time as the Confederation shall
take upon itself the military expenses up to this time borne
by the Cantons. Federal legislation shall provide, besides,
that the loss which may be occasioned to the finances of
certain Cantons by the sum of the charges which result from
Articles 20, 30, 36 (§ 2), and 42 (e), shall fall upon such
Cantons only gradually, and shall not attain its full effect
till after a transition period of some years. Those Cantons
which, at the going into effect of Article 20 of the
Constitution, have not fulfilled the military obligations
which are imposed upon them by the former Constitution, or by
federal laws, shall be bound to carry them out at their own
expense.
Article 2.
The provisions of the federal laws and of the cantonal
concordats, constitutions or cantonal laws, which are contrary
to this Constitution, cease to have effect by the adoption of
the Constitution or the publication of the laws for which it
provides.
Article 3.
The new provisions relating to the organization and
jurisdiction of the Federal Court take effect only after the
publication of federal laws thereon.
Article 4.
A delay of five years is allowed to Cantons for the
establishment of free instruction in primary public education.
(Art. 27.)
Article 5.
Those persons who practice a liberal profession, and who,
before the publication of the federal law provided for in
Article 33, have obtained a certificate of competence from a
Canton or a joint authority representing several Cantons, may
pursue that profession throughout the Confederation.
Article 6.
[Amendment of December 22, 1885. For the remainder of
this amendment see article 32 (ii).] If a federal law for
carrying out Article 32 (ii) be passed before the end of 1890,
the import duties levied on spirituous liquors by the Cantons
and Communes, according to Article 32, cease on the going into
effect of such law. If, in such case, the shares of any Canton
or Commune, out of the sums to be divided, are not sufficient
to equal the average annual net proceeds of the taxes they
have levied on spirituous liquors in the years 1880 to 1884
inclusive, the Cantons and Communes affected shall, till the
end of 1890, receive the amount of the deficiency out of the
amount which is to be divided among the other Cantons
according to population; and the remainder only shall be
divided among such other Cantons and Communes, according to
population. The Confederation shall further provide by law
that for such Cantons or Communes as may suffer financial loss
through the effect of this amendment, such loss shall not come
upon them immediately in its full extent, but gradually up to
the year 1895. The indemnities thereby made necessary shall be
previously taken out of the net proceeds designated in Article
32 (ii), paragraph 4.
Thus resolved by the National Council to be submitted to the
popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
January 31, 1874. Ziegler, President. Schiess, Secretary.
Thus resolved by the Council of States, to be submitted to the
popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,
January 31, 1874. A. Kopp, President. J. L. Lutscher,
Secretary.
----------CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781.
The Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781,
and 1783-1787.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787-1789, and 1791-1870.
A sketch of the history of the framing and adoption of the
Federal Constitution of the United States will be found under
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787,
and 1787-1789.
The following text of the original instrument, with the
subsequent amendments to it, is one prepared by Professor
Albert Bushnell Hart, and is the result of a careful
comparison with the original manuscripts, preserved in the
State Department at Washington. "It is intended to be
absolutely exact in word, spelling, capitalization and
punctuation. A few headings and paragraph numbers, inserted
for convenience of reference, are indicated by brackets."
"Those parts of the Constitution which were temporary in
their nature, or which have been superseded or altered by
later amendments, are included within the signs []." This
text, originally printed in the "American History Leaflets,"
is reproduced with Professor Hart's consent. The paragraphing
has been altered, to economize space, but it is otherwise
exactly reproduced:
{597}
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
Article I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives.
Section 2
[§ 1.]
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the
State Legislature.
[Footnote: Modified by Fourteenth Amendment.]
[§ 2.]
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years
a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.
[§ 3.]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within this Union,
according to their respective Numbers, [which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons.]
[Footnote: Superseded by Fourteenth Amendment.]
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after
the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall
not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall
have at Least one Representative; [and until such enumeration
shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to
chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey
four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia
ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.]
[Footnote: Temporary clause.]
[§ 4.]
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,
the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election
to fill such Vacancies.
[§ 5.]
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and
other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3.
[§ 1.]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
[§ 2.]
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of
the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be
into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first
Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year,
of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and
of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so
that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the
Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof
may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the
Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
[§ 3.]
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
[§ 4.]
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of
the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally
divided.
[§ 5.]
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the
United States.
[§ 6.]
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members
present.
[§ 7.]
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than
to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
according to Law.
Section 4.
[§ 1.]
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
chusing Senators.
[§ 2.]
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and
such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless
they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section 5.
[§ 1.]
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number
may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel
the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under
such Penalties as each House may provide.
[§ 2.]
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish
its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
[§ 3.]
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in
their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the
Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire
of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
[§ 4.]
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without
the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,
nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall
be sitting.
Section 6.
[§ 1.]
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation
for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of
the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases,
except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged
from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the
same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
not be questioned in any other Place.
{598}
[§ 2.]
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which
he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the
Authority of the United States, which shall have been created,
or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during
such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United
States, shall be a Member of either House during his
Continuance in Office.
Section 7.
[§ 1.]
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.
[§ 2.]
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,
be presented to the President of the United States; If he
approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with
his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass
the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a
Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the
Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be
returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)
after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a
Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the
Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
Case it shall not be a Law.
[§ 3.]
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of
the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary
(except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to
the President of the United States; and before the same shall
take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House
of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power
[§ 1.]
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay
the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[§ 2.]
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
[§ 3.]
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
[§ 4.]
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United
States;
[§ 5.]
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
[§ 6.]
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States;
[§ 7.]
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
[§ 8.]
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
[§ 9.]
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
[§ 10.]
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
[§ 11.]
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[§ 12.]
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[§ 13.]
To provide and maintain a Navy;
[§ 14.]
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
[§ 15.]
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
[§ 16.]
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;
[§ 17.]
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
[§ 18.]
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9.
[§ 1.]
[The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on
such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.]
[Footnote: Temporary provision.]
[§ 2.]
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.
[§ 3.]
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
[Footnote: Extended by the first eight Amendments.]
[§ 4.]
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed
to be taken.
[§ 5.]
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
State.
[§ 6.]
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or
Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to
enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
[§ 7.]
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and
Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time.
[§ 8.]
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
[Footnote: Extended by Ninth and Tenth Amendments.]
Section 10.
[§ 1.]
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation
of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
{599}
[§ 2.]
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and
the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State
on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of
the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the
Revision and Control of the Congress.
[§ 3.]
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty
of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or
with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of
delay.
[Footnote: Extended by Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments.]
Article II.
Section 1.
[§ 1.]
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the
Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President,
chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
[§ 2.]
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may
be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the
United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [The Electors
shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for
two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant
of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List
of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for
each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit
sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States,
directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the
Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number
of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority
of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be
more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number
of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person
have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in
chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote: A quorum for
this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two
thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall
be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of
the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes
of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]
[Footnote: Superseded by Twelfth Amendment.]
[§ 3.]
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day
shall be the same throughout the United States.
[§ 4.]
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[§ 5.]
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his
Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the
President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall
then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly,
until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
elected.
[§ 6.]
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his
Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor
diminished during the Period for which he shall have been
elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
[§ 7.]
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take
the following Oath or Affirmation:--
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States, and
will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2.
[§ 1.]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy
of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon
any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective
Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.
[§ 2.]
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
the Heads of Departments.
[§ 3.]
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that
may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session.
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he
may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or
either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
Ambassadors and other public Ministers: he shall take Care
that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.
{600}
Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both
of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2.
[§ 1.]
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority;
--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls;
--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
Party;
--to Controversies between two or more States;
--between a State and Citizens of another State;
[Footnote: Limited by Eleventh Amendment.]
--between Citizens of different States,
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or the
Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
[§ 2.]
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the
supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
make.
[§ 3.]
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall
be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where
the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not
committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place
or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3.
[§ 1.]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same
overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
[§ 2.]
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.
Article IV.
Section 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2.
[§ 1.]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
[Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment.]
[§ 2.]
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another
State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State
from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
[§ 3.]
[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the
Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of
any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service
or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
whom such Service or Labour may be due.]
[Footnote: Superseded by Thirteenth Amendment.]
Section 3.
[§ 1.]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by
the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the Congress.
[§ 2.]
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in
this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any
Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature,
or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic Violence.
Article V.
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the
several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that [no Amendment which may be made prior
to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and] that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
[Footnote: "[no amendment...]" is a Temporary provision.]
Article VI.
[§ 1.]
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation.
[Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.]
[§ 2.]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[§ 3.]
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.
Article VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between
the States so ratifying the Same.
{601}
DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States
present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the
Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In
Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names.
Go WASHINGTON--Presidt and deputy from Virginia.
DELAWARE.
Geo: Read
John Dickinson
Gunning Bedford jun
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman
MASSACHUSETTS.
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
MARYLAND.
James McHenry
Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer
Danl Carroll
CONNECTICUT.
Wm. Sami. Johnson
Roger Sherman
VIRGINIA.
John Blair
James Madison Jr.
NEW YORK.
Alexander Hamilton
NORTH CAROLINA.
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson
NEW JERSEY.
Wil: Livingston
Wm: Paterson.
David Brearley
Jona: Dayton
SOUTH CAROLINA.
J. Rutledge,
Charles Pinckney
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Pierce Butler.
PENNSYLVANIA.
B Franklin
Thos. Fitz Simons
Thomas Mifflin
Jared Ingersoll
Robt. Morris
James Wilson.
Geo. Clymer
Gouv Morris
GEORGIA.
William Few
Abr Baldwin
[Footnote: These signatures have no other legal force than
that of attestation.]
ARTICLES in addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and
ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant
to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
[Footnote: This heading appears only in the joint resolution
submitting the first ten amendments.]
[Article 1.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
[Article II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
[Article III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
[Article IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
[Article V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[Article VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[Article VII.]
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according
to the rules of the common law.
[Article VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[Article IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
[Article X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.
[Footnote: Amendments First to Tenth appear to have been in
force from November 3, 1791. (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1791.)]
[Article XI.]
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
State.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force January 8, 1798.]
{602}
[Article XII.]
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote
by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at
least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted
for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for
as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all
persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for
as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which
lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the
seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall,
in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
open all the certificates and the votes shall then be
counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for
President, shall be the President, if such number be a
majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no
person have such majority, then from the persons having the
highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted
for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose
immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the
President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for
this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states
shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of
Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the
right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day
of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
disability of the President.--The person having the greatest
number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a
majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the
purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of
Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally
ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to
that of Vice-President of the United States.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force September 25, 1804.]
Article XIII.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force December 18, 1865.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).]]
Article XIV.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of
electors for President and Vice President of the United
States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and
Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any
State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection
or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United
States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or
emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and
claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force July 28. 1868.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866
(DECEMBER-APRIL); 1866 (JUNE),
and 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).]]
Article XV.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force March 30, 1870.
[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.]]
----------CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.
The following text is taken from Bulletin No. 34 of the Bureau
of the American Republics:
Article I.
The States that the constitution of March 28, 1864, declared
independent and united to form the Venezuelan Federation, and
that on April 27, 1881, were denominated Apure, Bolivar,
Barquisimeto, Barcelona, Carabobo, Cojedes, Cumamá, Falcón,
Guzmán Blanco, Guárico, Gunynna, Guzmán, Maturin, Nuevn
Esparta, Portuguesa, Táchira, Trujillo, Yaracay, Zamora, and
Zulia are constituted into nine grand political bodies, viz:
The State of Bermudez, composed of Barcelona, Cumaná, and
Maturin; the State of Miranda, composed of Bolivar, Guzman
Blanco, Guárico, and Nueva Esparta; the State of Carabobo,
composed of Carabobo and Nirgua; the State of Zamora, composed
of Cojedes, Portuguesa, and Zamora; the State of Lara,
composed of Barquisimeto and Yaracuy, except the department of
Nirgua; the State of Los Andes, composed of Guzman, Trujillo,
and Táchira; the State of Bolivar, composed of Guayana and
Apure; the State of Zulia, and also the State of Falcón. And
they are thus constituted to continue one only nation, free,
sovereign, and independent, under the title of the United
States of Venezuela.
{603}
Article. 2.
The boundaries of these great States are determined by those
that the law of April 28, 1856, that arranged the last
territorial division, designated for the ancient provinces
until it shall be re-formed.
Article. 3.
The boundaries of the United States of the Venezuelan
Federation are the same that in 1810 belonged to the old
Captaincy-General of Venezuela.
Article. 4.
The States that are grouped together to form the grand
political bodies will be called Sections. These are equal
among themselves; the constitutions prescribed for their
internal organism must be harmonious with the federative
principles established by the present compact, and the
sovereignty not delegated resides in the State without any
other limitations than those that devolve from the compromise
of association.
Article. 5.
These are Venezuelans, viz:
1st, All persons that may have been or may be born on
Venezuelan soil, whatever may be the nationality of their
parents;
2d, The children of a Venezuelan father or mother that may
have been born on foreign soil, if they should come to take up
their domicile in the country and express the desire to become
citizens;
3d, Foreigners that may have obtained naturalization papers; and,
4th, Those born or that shall be born in any of the
Spanish-American republics or in the Spanish Antilles,
provided that they may have taken up their residence in the
territory of the Republic and express a willingness to become
citizens.
Article. 6.
Those that take up their residence and acquire nationality in
a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.
Article. 7.
Males over twenty-one years of age are qualified Venezuelan
citizens, with only the exceptions contained in this
constitution.
Article. 8.
All Venezuelans are obliged to serve the nation according to
the prescriptions of the laws, sacrificing his property and
his life, if necessary, to defend the country.
Article. 9.
Venezuelans shall enjoy, in all the States of the Union, the
rights and immunities inherent to their condition as citizens
of the Federation, and they shall also have imposed upon them
there the same duties that are required of those that are
natives or domiciled there.
Article. 10.
Foreigners shall enjoy the same civil rights as Venezuelans
and the same security in their persons and property. They can
only take advantage of diplomatic means in accordance with
public treaties and in cases when right permits it.
Article. 11.
The law will determine the right applicable to the condition
of foreigners, according as they may be domiciled or in
transit.
Article. 12.
The States that form the Venezuelan Federation reciprocally
recognize their respective autonomies; they are declared equal
in political entity, and preserve, in all its plenitude, the
sovereignty not expressly delegated in this constitution.
Article. 13.
The States of the Venezuelan Federation oblige themselves--
1st, To organize themselves in accord with the principles of
popular, elective, federal, representative, alternative, and
responsible government;
2d, To establish the fundamental regulations of their interior
regulation and government in entire conformity with the
principles of this constitution;
3d, To defend themselves against all violence that threatens
the sectional independence or the integrity of the Venezuelan
Federation;
4th, To not alienate to a foreign power any part of their
territory, nor to implore its protection, nor to establish or
cultivate political or diplomatic relations with other
nations, since this last is reserved to the Federal power;
5th, To not combine or ally themselves with another nation,
nor to separate themselves to the prejudice of the nationality
of Venezuela and her territory;
6th, To cede to the nation the territory that may be necessary
for the Federal district;
7th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the territory
necessary for the erection of forts, warehouses, shipyards,
and penitentiaries, and for the construction of other edifices
indispensable to the general administration;
8th, To leave to the Government of the Federation the
administration of the Amazonas and Goajira territories and
that of the islands which pertain to the nation, until it may
be convenient to elevate them to another rank;
9th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation all
legislative or executive jurisdiction concerning maritime,
coastwise, and fluvial navigation, and the national roads,
considering as such those that exceed the limits of a State
and lead to the frontiers of others and to the Federal
district;
10th, To not subject to contributions the products or articles
upon which national taxes are imposed, or those that are by
law exempt from tax before they have been offered for
consumption;
11th, To not impose contributions on cattle, effects, or any
class of merchandise in transit for another State, in order
that traffic may be absolutely free, and that in one section
the consumption of others may not be taxed;
12th, To not prohibit the consumption of the products of other
States nor to tax their productions with greater general or
municipal taxes than those paid on products raised in the
locality;
13th, To not establish maritime or territorial custom-houses
for the collection of imports, since there will be national
ones only;
14th, To recognise the right of each State to dispose of its
natural products;
15th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the
administration of mines, public lands, and salt mines, in
order that the first may be regulated by a system of uniform
working and that the latter may be applied to the benefit of
the people;
16th, To respect the property, arsenals, and forts of the
nation;
17th, To comply with and cause to be complied with and
executed the Constitution and laws of the federation and the
decrees and orders that the federal power, the tribunals, and
courts may expedite in use of their attributes and legal
faculties;
18th, To give entire faith to and to cause to be complied with
and executed the public acts and judicial procedures of the
other States;
19th, To organize their tribunals and courts for the
administration of justice in the State and to have for all of
them the same substantive civil and criminal legislation and
the same laws of civil and criminal procedure;
20th, To present judges for the court of appeals and to submit
to the decision of this supreme tribunal of the States;
21st, To incorporate the extradition of criminals as a
political principle in their respective Constitutions;
22d, To establish direct and public suffrage in popular
elections, making it obligatory and endorsing it in the
electoral registry. The vote of the suffragist must be cast in
full and public session of the respective board; it will be
inscribed in the registry books that the law prescribes for
elections, which can not be substituted in any other form, and
the elector, for himself or by another at his request in case
of impediment or through ignorance, will sign the memorandum
entry of his vote, and without this requisite it can not be
claimed that in reality he has voted;
{604}
23d, To establish a system of primary education and that of
arts and trades;
24th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation the laws and
provisions necessary for the creation, conservation, and
progress of general schools, colleges, or universities
designed for the teaching of the sciences;
25th, To not impose duties upon the national employés, except
in the quality of citizens of the State and insomuch as these
duties may not be incompatible with the national public
service;
26th, To furnish the proportional contingent that pertains to
them to compose the national public forces in time of peace or
war;
27th, To not permit in the States of the Federation forced
enlistments and levies that have or may have for their object
an attack on liberty or independence or a disturbance of the
public order of the Nation, of other States, or of another
Nation;
28th, To preserve a strict neutrality in the contentions that
may arise in other States;
29th, To not declare or carry on war in any case, one State
with another;
30th, To defer and submit to the decision of the Congress or
the High Federal Court in all the controversies that may arise
between two or more States when they can not, between
themselves and by pacific measures, arrive at an agreement.
If, for any cause, they may not designate the arbiter to whose
decision they may submit, they leave it, in fact, to the High
Federal Court;
31st, To recognize the competency of Congress and of the court
of appeals to take cognizance of the causes that, for treason
to the country or for the infraction of the Constitution and
laws of the Federation, may be instituted against those that
exercise executive authority in the States, it being their
duty to incorporate this precept in their constitutions. In
these trials the modes of procedure that the general laws
prescribe will be followed and they will be decided in
consonance with those laws;
32d, To have as the just income of the States, two-thirds of
the total product of the impost collected as transit tax in
all the custom-houses of the Republic and two-thirds of that
collected from mines, public lands, and salt mines
administered by the Federal Power and to distribute this
income among all the States of the Federation in proportion to
the population of each;
33d, To reserve to the Federal Power the amount of the third
part of the income from transit tax, the production of mines,
public lands, and salt mines, to be invested in the
improvement of the country;
34th, To keep far away from the frontier those individuals
that, through political motives, take refuge in a State,
provided that the State interested requests it.
Article. 14.
The nation guarantees to Venezuelans:
1st, The inviolability of life, capital punishment being
abolished in spite of any law that establishes it;
2d, Property, with all its attributes, rights and privileges,
will only be subjected to contributions decreed by legislative
authority, to judicial decision, and to be taken for public
works after indemnity and condemnation;
3d, The inviolability and secrecy of correspondence and other
private papers;
4th, The domestic hearth, that can not be approached except to
prevent the perpetration of crime, and this itself must be
done in accordance with law;
5th, Personal liberty, and consequently
(1) forced recruiting for armed service is abolished,
(2) slavery is forever proscribed,
(3) slaves that tread the soil of Venezuela are free, and
(4) nobody is obliged to do that which the law does not
command, nor is impeded from doing that which it does not
prohibit;
6th, The freedom of thought, expressed by word or through the
press, is without any restriction to be submitted to previous
censure. In cases of calumny or injury or prejudice to a third
party, the aggrieved party shall have every facility to have
his complaints investigated before competent tribunals of
justice in accordance with the common laws;
7th, The liberty of traveling without passport, to change the
domicil, observing the legal formalities, and to depart from
and return to the Republic, carrying off and bringing back his
or her property;
8th, The liberty of industry and consequently the
proprietorship of discoveries and productions. The law will
assign to the proprietors a temporary privilege or the mode of
indemnity in case that the author agrees to its publication;
9th, The liberty of reunion and assembling without arms,
publicly or privately, the authorities being prohibited from
exercising any act of inspection or coercion;
10th, The liberty of petition, with the right of obtaining
action by resolution; petition can be made by any functionary,
authority or corporation. If the petition shall be made in the
name of various persons, the first five will respond for the
authenticity of the signatures and all for the truth of the
assertions;
11th, The liberty of suffrage at popular elections without any
restriction except to males under eighteen years of age;
12th, The liberty of instruction will be protected to every
extent. The public power is obliged to establish gratuitous
instruction in primary schools, the arts, and trades;
13th, Religious liberty;
14th, Individual security, and, therefore
(1) no Venezuelan can be imprisoned or arrested in
punishment for debts not founded in fraud or crime;
(2) nor to be obliged to lodge or quarter soldiers in his
house;
(3) nor to be judged by special commissions or tribunals,
but by his natural judges and by virtue of laws dictated
before the commission of the crime or act to be judged;
(4) nor to be imprisoned nor arrested without previous
summary information that a crime meriting corporal
punishment has been committed, and a written order from the
functionary that orders the imprisonment, stating the cause
of arrest, unless the person may be caught in the
commission of the crime;
(5) nor to be placed in solitary confinement for any cause;
(6) nor to be obliged to give evidence, in criminal causes,
against himself or his blood relations within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or against his relations by
marriage within the second degree, or against husband or
wife;
(7) nor to remain in prison when the reasons that caused
the imprisonment have been dissipated;
(8) nor to be sentenced to corporal punishment for more
than ten years;
(9) nor to remain deprived of his liberty for political
reasons when order is reestablished.
{605}
Article. 15.
Equality: in virtue of which
(1) all must be judged by the very same laws and subject to
equal duty, service and contributions;
(2) no titles of nobility, hereditary honors, and
distinctions will be conceded, nor employments or offices
the salaries or emoluments of which continue after the
termination of service;
(3) no other official salutation than "citizen" and "you"
will be given to employés and corporations. The present
enumeration does not impose upon the States the obligation
to accord other guarantees to their inhabitants.
Article 16.
The laws in the States will prescribe penalties for the
infractions of these guarantees, establishing modes of
procedure to make them effective.
Article 17.
Those who may issue, sign, or execute, or order executed any
decrees, orders, or resolutions that violate or in any manner
infringe upon the guarantees accorded to Venezuelans are
culpable and must be punished according to the law. Every
citizen is empowered to bring charges.
Article 18.
The National Legislature will be composed of two chambers, one
of Senators and another of Deputies.
Article 19.
The States will determine the mode of election of Deputies.
Article 20.
To form the Chamber of Deputies, each State will name, by
popular election in accordance with paragraph 22 of Article 13
of this Constitution, one Deputy for each thirty-five thousand
inhabitants and another for an excess not under fifteen
thousand. In the same manner it will elect alternates in equal
number to the principals.
Article 21.
The Deputies will hold office for four years, when they will
be renewed in their entirety.
Article 22.
The prerogatives of the chamber of Deputies are:
First, to examine the annual account that the President of the
United States of Venezuela must render;
Second, to pass a vote of censure of the Ministers of the
Cabinet, in which event their posts will be vacant;
Third, to hear charges against the persons in charge of the
office of the National Executive for treason to the country,
for infraction of the constitution, or for ordinary crimes;
against the ministers and other National employés for
infraction of the Constitution and laws and for fault in the
discharge of their duties according to article 75 of this
constitution and of the general laws of the Republic. This
attribute is preventative and neither contracts nor diminishes
those that other authorities have to judge and punish.
Article 23.
When a charge is instituted by a Deputy or by any corporation
or individual the following rules will be observed:
(1) there will be appointed, in secret session, a commission
of three deputies;
(2) the commission will, within three days, render an opinion,
declaring whether or not there is foundation for instituting a
cause;
(3) the Chamber will consider the information and decide upon
the cause by the vote of an absolute majority of the members
present, the accusing Deputy abstaining from voting.
Article 24.
The declaration that there is foundation for the cause
operates to suspend from office the accused and incapacitates
him for the discharge of any public function during the trial.
Article 25.
To form this Chamber each State, through its respective
legislature, will elect three principal Senators and an equal
number of alternates to supply the vacancies that may occur.
Article 26.
To be a Senator it is required that he shall be a Venezuelan
by birth and thirty years of age.
Article 27.
The Senators will occupy their posts for four years and be
renewed in their entirety.
Article 28.
It is the prerogative of the Senate to substantiate and decide
the causes initiated in the Chamber of Deputies.
Article 29.
If the cause may not have been concluded during the sessions,
the Senate will continue assembled for this purpose only until
the cause is finished.
Article 30.
The National Legislature will assemble on the 20th day of
February of each year or as soon thereafter as possible at the
capital of the United States without the necessity of previous
notice. The sessions will last for seventy days to be
prolonged until ninety days at the judgment of the majority.
Article 31.
The Chambers will open their sessions with two-thirds of their
number at least; and, in default of this number, those present
will assemble in preparatory commission and adopt measures for
the concurrence of the absentees.
Article 32.
The sessions having been opened, they may be continued by
two-thirds of those that may have installed them, provided
that the number be not less than half of all the members
elected.
Article 33.
Although the Chambers deliberate separately, they may assemble
together in the Congress when the constitution and laws
provide for it or when one of the two Chambers may deem it
necessary. If the Chamber that is invited shall agree, it
remains to it to fix the day and the hour of the joint
session.
Article 34.
The sessions will be public and secret at the will of the
Chamber.
Article 35.
The Chambers have the right:
(1) to make rules to be observed in the sessions and to
regulate the debates;
(2) to correct infractors;
(3) to establish the police force in the hall of sessions;
(4) to punish or correct spectators who create disorder;
(5) to remove the obstacles to the free exercise of their
functions;
(6) to command the execution of their private resolutions;
(7) to judge of the qualifications of their members and to
consider their resignations.
Article 36.
One of the Chambers cannot suspend its sessions nor change its
place of meeting without the consent of the other; in case of
disagreement they will reassemble together and execute that
which the majority resolves.
Article 37.
The exercise of any other public function, during the
sessions, is incompatible with those of a Senator or Deputy.
The law will specify the remunerations that the members of the
national Legislature shall receive for their services. And
whenever an increase of said remunerations is decreed, the law
that sanctions it will not begin to be in force until the
following period when the Chambers that sanctioned it shall
have been renewed in their entirety.
Article 38.
The Senators and Deputies shall enjoy immunity from the 20th
day of January of each year until thirty days after the close
of the sessions and this consists in the suspension of all
civil or criminal proceeding, whatever may be its origin or
nature; when anyone shall perpetrate an act that merits
corporal punishment the investigation shall continue until the
end of the summing up and shall remain in this state while the
term of immunity continues.
Article 39.
The Congress will be presided over by the President of the
Senate and the presiding officer of the Chamber of Deputies
will act as Vice-President.
{606}
Article 40.
The members of the Chambers are not responsible for the
opinions they express or the discourses they pronounce in
session.
Article 41.
Senators and deputies that accept office or commission from
the National Executive thereby leave vacant the posts of
legislators in the Chambers to which they were elected.
Article 42.
Nor can senators and deputies make contracts with the general
Government or conduct the prosecution of claims of others
against it.
Article 43.
The National Legislature has the following prerogatives:
(1) to dissolve the controversies that may arise between two
or more States;
(2) to locate the Federal District in an unpopulated territory
not exceeding three miles square, where will be constructed
the capital city of the Republic. This district will be
neutral territory, and no other elections will be there held
than those that the law determines for the locality, The
district will be provisionally that which the constituent
assembly designated or that which the National Legislature may
designate;
(3) to organize everything relating to the custom-houses,
whose income will constitute the treasure of the Union until
these incomes are supplied from other sources;
(4) to dispose in everything relating to the habitation and
security of ports and seacoasts;
(5) to create and organize the postal service and to fix the
charges for transportation of correspondence;
(6) to form the National Codes in accordance with paragraph
19, article 13 of this Constitution;
(7) to fix the value, type law, weight, and coinage of
national money, and to regulate the admission and circulation
of foreign money;
(8) to designate the coat-of-arms and the national flag which
will be the same for all the States;
(9) to create, abolish, and fix salaries for national offices;
(10) to determine everything in relation to the national debt;
(11) to contract loans upon the credit of the nation;
(12) to dictate necessary measures to perfect the census of
the current population and the national statistics;
(13) to annually fix the armed forces by sea and land and to
dictate the army regulations;
(14) to decree rules for the formation and substitution of the
forces referred to in the preceding clause;
(15) to declare war and to require the National Executive to
negotiate peace;
(16) to ratify or reject the contracts for national public
works made by the President with the approval of the Federal
Council, without which requisite they will not be carried into
effect;
[Transcriber's note: (17) is missing.]
(18) to annually fix the estimates for public expenses;
(19) to promote whatever conduces to the prosperity of the
country and to its advancement in the general knowledge of the
arts and sciences;
(20) to fix and regulate the national weights and measures;
(21) to grant amnesties;
(22) to establish, under the names of territories, special
regulations for the government of regions inhabited by
unconquered and uncivilized Indians. Such territories will be
under the immediate supervision of the Executive of the Union;
(23) to establish the modes of procedure and to designate the
penalties to be imposed by the Senate in the trials originated
in the Chamber of Deputies;
(24) to increase the basis of population for the election of
deputies;
(25) to permit or refuse the admission of foreigners into the
service of the Republic;
(26) to make laws in respect to retirements from the military
service and army pensions;
(27) to dictate the law of responsibility on the part of all
national employés and those of the States for infraction of
the constitution and the general laws of the Union;
(28) to determine the mode of conceding military rank or
promotion;
(29) to elect the Federal Council provided for in this
constitution and to convoke the alternates of the senators and
deputies who may have been chosen for it.
Article 44.
Besides the preceding enumeration the National Legislature may
pass such laws of general character as may be necessary, but
in no case can they be promulgated, much less executed, if
they conflict with this constitution, which defines the
prerogatives of the public powers in Venezuela.
Article 45.
The laws and decrees of the National Legislature may be
proposed by the members of either chamber, provided that the
respective projects are conformed to the rules established for
the Parliament of Venezuela.
Article 46.
After a project may have been presented, it will be read and
considered in order to be admitted; and if it is, it must
undergo three discussions, with an interval of at least one
day between each, observing the rules established for debate.
Article 47.
The projects approved in the chamber in which they were
originated will be passed to the other for the purposes
indicated in the preceding article, and if they are not
rejected they will be returned to the chamber whence they
originated, with the amendments they may have undergone.
Article 48.
If the chamber of their origin does not agree to the
amendments, it may insist and send its written reasons to the
other. They may also assemble together in Congress and
deliberate, in general commission, over the mode of agreement,
but if this can not be reached, the project will be of no
effect after the chamber of its origin separately decides upon
the ratification of its insistence.
Article 49.
Upon the passing of the projects from one to the other
chamber, the days on which they have been discussed will be
stated.
Article 50.
The law reforming another law must be fully engrossed and the
former law, in all its parts, will be annulled.
Article 51.
In the laws this form will be used: "The Congress of the
United States of Venezuela decrees."
Article 52.
The projects defeated in one legislature cannot be
reintroduced except in another.
Article 53.
The projects pending in a chamber at the close of the sessions
must undergo the same three discussions in succeeding
legislatures.
Article 54.
Laws are annulled with the same formalities established for
their sanction.
Article 55.
When the ministers of Cabinet may have sustained, in a
chamber, the unconstitutionality of a project by word or in
writing, and, notwithstanding this, it may have been
sanctioned as law, the National Executive, with the
affirmative vote of the Federal Council, will suspend its
execution and apply to the legislatures of the States, asking
their vote in the matter.
Article 56.
In case of the foregoing article, each State will represent
one vote expressed by the majority of the members of the
legislature present, and the result will be sent to the High
Federal Court in this form: "I confirm" or "I reject."
{607}
Article 57.
If a majority of the legislatures of the States agree with the
Federal Executive, the High Federal Court will confirm the
suspension, and the Federal Executive himself will render an
account to the next Congress relative to all that has been
done in the matter.
Article 58.
The laws will not be observed until after being published in
the solemn form established.
Article 59.
The faculty conceded to sanction a law is not to be delegated.
Article 60.
No legislative disposition will have a retroactive effect,
except in matters of judicial procedure and that which imposes
a lighter penalty.
Article 61.
There will be a Federal Council composed of one senator and
one deputy for each State and of one more deputy for the
Federal District, who will be elected by the Congress each two
years from among the respective representations of the States
composing the Federation and from that of the Federal
District. This election will take place in the first fifteen
days of the meeting of Congress, in the first and third year
of the constitutional period.
Article 62.
The Federal Council elects from its members the President of
the United States of Venezuela, and in the same manner the
person who shall act in his stead in case of his temporal or
permanent disability during his term. The election of a person
to be President of the United States of Venezuela who is not a
member of the Federal Council, as well as of those who may
have to act in his stead in case of his temporal or permanent
disability, is null of right and void of efficacy.
Article 63.
The members of the Federal Council hold office for two years,
the same as the President of the United States of Venezuela,
whose term is of equal duration; and neither he nor they can
be reëlected for the term immediately succeeding, although
they may return to occupy` their posts as legislators in the
chambers to which they belong.
Article 64.
The Federal Council resides in the district and exercises the
functions prescribed in this constitution. It cannot
deliberate with less than an absolute majority of all its
members; it dictates the interior regulations to be observed
in its deliberations, and annually appoints the person who
shall preside over its sessions.
Article 65.
The prerogatives of the President of Venezuela are:
(1) To appoint and remove the cabinet ministers;
(2) to preside over the cabinet, in whose discussions he will
have a vote, and to inform the Council of all the matters that
refer to the General Administration;
(3) to receive and welcome public ministers;
(4) to sign the official letters to the Sovereigns or
Presidents of other countries;
(5) to order the execution of the laws and decrees of the
National Legislature, and to take care that they are complied
with and executed;
(6) to promulgate the resolutions and decrees that may have
been proposed and received the approbation of the Federal
Council, in conformity with article 66 of this constitution;
(7) to organize the Federal District and to act therein as the
chief civil and political authority established by this
constitution;
(8) to issue registers of navigation to national vessels;
(9) to render an account to Congress, within the first eight
days of its annual session, of the cases in which, with the
approval of the Federal Council, he may have exercised all or
any of the faculties accorded to him in article 66 of this
compact;
(10) to discharge the other functions that the national laws
entrust to him.
Article 66.
Besides the foregoing prerogatives, that are personal to the
president of the United States of Venezuela, he can, with the
deliberate vote of the Federal Council, exercise the
following:
(1) To protect the Nation from all exterior attack;
(2) to administer the public lands, mines, and salt mines of
the States as their delegate;
(3) to convoke the National Legislature in its regular
sessions, and in extraordinary session when the gravity of any
subject demands it;
(4) to nominate persons for diplomatic positions,
consuls-general, and consuls; those named for the first and
second positions must be Venezuelans by birth;
(5) to direct negotiations and celebrate all kinds of treaties
with other nations, submitting these to the National
Legislature;
(6) to celebrate contracts of national interest in accordance
with the laws and to submit them the legislatures for their
approval;
(7) to nominate the employés of hacienda, which nominations
are not to be made by any other authority. It is required that
these employés shall be Venezuelan by birth;
(8) to remove and suspend employés of his own free motion,
ordering them to be tried if there should be cause for it;
(9) to declare war in the name of the Republic when Congress
shall have decreed it;
(10) in the case of foreign war he can,
first, demand from the States the assistance necessary for
the national defense;
second, require, in anticipation, the contributions and
negotiate the loans decreed by the National Legislature;
third, arrest or expel persons who pertain to the nation
with which war is carried on and who may be opposed to the
defense of the country;
fourth, to suspend the guaranties that may be incompatible
with the defense of the country, except that of life;
fifth, to select the place to which the General Power of
the Federation may be provisionally translated when there
may be grave reasons for it;
sixth, to bring to trial for treason to the country those
Venezuelans who may be, in any manner, hostile to the
national defense;
seventh, to issue registers to corsairs and privateers and
to prescribe the laws that they must observe in cases of
capture;
(11) to employ the public force and the powers contained in
numbers 1, 2, and 5 of the preceding clause with the object of
reëstablishing constitutional order in case of armed
insurrection against the institutions of the Nation;
(12) to dispose of the public force for the purpose of
quelling every armed collision between two or more States,
requiring them to lay down their arms and submit their
controversies to the arbitration to which they are pledged by
number 30, article 14 of this constitution;
(13) to direct the war and to appoint the person who shall
command the army;
(14) to organize the national force in time of peace;
(15) to concede general or particular exemptions;
(16) to defend the territory designated for the Federal
District when there may be reasons to apprehend that it will
be invaded by hostile forces.
Article 67.
The President of the United States of Venezuela shall have the
ministers for his cabinet that the law designates. It will
determine their functions and duties and will organize their
bureaus.
Article 68.
To be a minister of the cabinet it is required that the person
shall be twenty-five years of age, a Venezuelan by birth or
five years of naturalization.
{608}
Article 69.
The ministers are the natural and proper organs of the
President of the United States of Venezuela. All his acts must
be subscribed by them and without such requisite they will not
be complied with nor executed by the authorities, employees,
or private persons.
Article 70.
All the acts of the ministers must be conformed to this
Constitution and the laws; their personal responsibility is
not saved, although they may have the written order of the
President.
Article 71.
The settlement of all business, except the fiscal affairs of
the bureaus, will be determined in the council of ministers,
and their responsibility is collective and consolidated.
Article 72.
The ministers, within the five first sessions of each year,
will render an account to the Chambers of what they may have
done or propose to do in their respective branches. They will
also render written or verbal reports that may be requested of
them, reserving only that which, in diplomatic affairs, it may
not be convenient to publish.
Article 73.
Within the same period, they will present to the National
Legislature the estimates of public expenditures and the
general account of the past year.
Article 74.
The ministers have the right to be heard in the Chambers, and
are obliged to attend when they may be called upon for
information.
Article 75.
The ministers are responsible:
(1) for treason to the country;
(2) for infraction of this Constitution or the laws;
(3) for malversation of the public funds;
(4) for exceeding the estimates in their expenditures;
(5) for subornation or bribery in the affairs under their
charge or in the nominations for public employees;
(6) for failure in compliance with the decisions of the
Federal Council.
Article 76.
The High Federal Court will be composed of as many judges as
there may be States of the Federation and with the following
qualities:
(1) A judge must be a Venezuelan by birth;
(2) he must be thirty years of age.
Article 77.
For the nomination of judges of the High Federal Court the
Congress will convene on the fifteenth day of its regular
sessions and will proceed to group together the representation
of each State from which to form a list of as many candidates
for principal judges and an equal number of alternates as
there may be States of the Federation. The Congress, in the
same or following session, will elect one principal and one
alternate for each State, selecting them from the respective
lists.
Article 78. The law will determine the different functions of the
judges and other officers of the High Federal Court.
Article 79.
The judges and their respective alternates will hold office
for four years. The principals and their alternates in office
can not accept during this period any office in the gift of
the executive without previous resignation and lawful
acceptance. The infraction of this disposition will be
punished with four years of disability to hold public office
in Venezuela.
Article 80.
The matters within the competence of the High Federal Court
are:
(1) to take cognizance of civil or criminal causes that may be
instituted against diplomatic officers in those cases
permitted by the law of nations;
(2) to take cognizance of causes ordered by the President to
be instituted against cabinet ministers when they may be
accused according to the cases provided for in this
Constitution. In the matter of the necessity of suspension
from office, they will request the President to that effect
and he will comply;
[Transcriber's note: (3) is absent.]
(4) to have jurisdiction of the causes of responsibility
instituted against diplomatic agents accredited to another
nation for the wrong discharge of their functions;
(5) to have jurisdiction in civil trials when the nation is
defendant and the law sanctions it;
(6) to dissipate the controversies that may arise between the
officials of different States in political order in the matter
of jurisdiction or competence;
(7) to take cognizance of all matters of political nature that
the States desire to submit for their consideration;
(8) to declare which may be the law in force when the national
and State laws may be found to conflict with each other;
(9) to have jurisdiction in the controversies that may result
from contracts or negotiations celebrated by the president of
the federation;
(10) to have jurisdiction in causes of imprisonment;
(11) to exercise other prerogatives provided for by law.
Article 81.
The Court of Appeals referred to in paragraph 20, article 13
of this Constitution, is the tribunal of the states; it will
be composed of as many judges as there are states of the
federation, and their terms of office will last for four
years.
Article 82.
A judge of the Court of Appeals must have the following
qualifications:
(1) he must be an attorney at law in the exercise of his
profession, and must have had at least six years practice;
(2) he must be a Venezuelan, thirty years of age.
Article 83.
Every four years the legislature of each State will form a
list of as many attorneys, with the qualifications expressed
in the preceding article, as there are States, and will remit
it, duly certified, to the Federal Council in order that this
body, from the respective lists, may select a judge for each
State in the organization of this high tribunal.
Article 84.
After the Federal Council may have received the lists from all
the States, it will proceed, in public session, to verify the
election; forming thereafter a list of the attorneys not
elected, in order that from this general list, which will be
published in the official paper, the permanent vacancies that
may occur in the Court of Appeals may be filled by lot. The
temporary vacancies will be filled according to law.
Article 85.
The Court of Appeals will have the following prerogatives:
(1) to take cognizance of criminal causes or those of
responsibility that may be instituted against the high
functionaries of the different States, applying the laws of
the States themselves in matters of responsibility, and in
case of omission of the promulgation of a law of
constitutional precept, it will apply to the cause in question
the general laws of the land;
(2) to take cognizance and to decide in cases of appeal in the
form and terms directed by law;
(3) to annually report to the National Legislature the
difficulties that stand in the way of uniformity in the matter
of civil or criminal legislation;
(4) to dispose of the rivalries that may arise between the
officers or functionaries of judicial order in the different
States of the federation and amongst those of a single State,
provided that the authority to settle them does not exist in
the State.
{609}
Article 86.
The National Executive is exercised by the Federal Council,
the President of the United States of Venezuela, or the person
who fills his vacancies, in union with the cabinet ministers
who are his organs. The President of Venezuela must be a
Venezuelan by birth.
Article 87.
The functions of National Executive can not be exercised
outside of the federal district except in the case provided
for in number 5, paragraph 10, article 66 of the Constitution.
When the President, with the approval of the Council, shall
take command of the army or absent himself from the district
on account of matters of public interest that demand it, he
can not exercise any functions and will be replaced by the
Federal Council in accordance with article 62 of this
Constitution.
Article 88.
Everything that may not be expressly assigned to the general
administration of the nation in this Constitution is reserved
to the States.
Article 89.
The tribunals of justice in the States are independent; the
causes originated in them will be concluded in the same States
without any other review than that of the Court of Appeals in
the cases provided for by law.
Article 90.
Every act of Congress and of the National Executive that
violates the rights guaranteed to the States in this
Constitution, or that attacks their independence, must be
declared of no effect by the High Court, provided that a
majority of the legislatures demands it.
Article 91.
The public national force is divided into naval and land
troops, and will be composed of the citizen militia that the
States may organize according to law.
Article 92.
The force at the disposal of the federation will be organized
from citizens of a contingent furnished by each State in
proportion to its population, calling to service those
citizens that should render it according to their internal
laws.
Article 93.
In case of war the contingent can be augmented by bodies of
citizen militia up to the number of men necessary to fill the
draft of the National Government.
Article 94.
The National Government may change the commanders of the
public force supplied by the States in the cases and with the
formalities provided for in the national military law and then
their successors will be called for from the States.
Article 95.
The military and civil authority can never be exercised by the
same person or corporation.
Article 96.
The nation, being in possession of the right of ecclesiastical
patronage, will exercise it as the law upon the subject may
direct.
Article 97.
The Government of the Federation will have no other resident
employees with jurisdiction or authority in the States than
those of the States themselves. The officers of hacienda,
those of the forces that garrison national fortresses,
arsenals created by law, navy-yards, and habilitated ports,
that only have jurisdiction in matters peculiar to their
respective offices and within the limits of the forts and
quarters that they command, are excepted; but even these must
be subject to the general laws of the State in which they
reside. All the elements of war now existing belong to the
National Government; nevertheless it is not to be understood
that the States are prohibited from acquiring those that they
may need for domestic defense.
Article 98.
The National Government can not station troops nor military
officers with command in a State, although they may be from
that or another State, without permission of the government of
the State in which the force is to be stationed.
Article 99.
Neither the National Executive nor those of the States can
resort to armed intervention in the domestic contentions of a
State; it is only permitted to them to tender their good
offices to bring about a pacific solution in the case.
Article 100.
In case of a permanent or temporary vacancy in the office of
President of the United States of Venezuela, the States will
be immediately informed as to who has supplied the vacancy.
Article 101.
Exportation in Venezuela is free and no duty can be placed
upon it.
Article 102.
All usurped authority is without effect and its acts are null.
Every order granted for a requisition, direct or indirect, by
armed force or by an assemblage of people in subversive
attitude is null of right and void of efficacy.
Article 103.
The exercise of any function not conferred by the constitution
or laws is prohibited to every corporation or authority.
Article 104.
Any citizen may accuse the employees of the nation or the
States before the chamber of deputies, before their respective
superiors in office, or before the authorities designated by
law.
Article 105.
No payment shall be made from the National Treasury for which
Congress has not expressly provided in the annual estimate,
and those that may infringe this rule will be civilly
responsible to the National Treasury for the sums they have
paid out. In every payment from the public Treasury the
ordinary expenses will be preferred to the extraordinary
charges.
Article 106.
The offices of collection and disbursement of the national
taxes shall be always separate, and the officers of collection
may disburse only the salaries of their respective employees.
Article 107.
When, for any reason, the estimate of appropriations for a
fiscal period have not been made, that of the immediately
preceding period will continue in force.
Article 108.
In time of elections, the public national force or that of the
States themselves will remain closely quartered during the
holding of popular elections.
Article 109.
In international treaties of commerce and friendship this
clause will be inserted, to wit: "all the disagreements
between the contracting parties must be decided without an
appeal to war, by the decision of a power or friendly powers."
Article 110.
No individual can hold more than one office within the gift of
Congress and the National Executive. The acceptance of any
other is equivalent to resignation of the first. Officials
that are removable will cease to hold office upon accepting
the charge of a Senator or Deputy when they are dependents of
the National Executive.
Article 111.
The law will create and designate other national tribunals
that may be necessary.
Article 112.
National officers can not accept gifts, commissions, honors,
or emoluments from a foreign nation without permission from
the National Legislature.
Article 113.
Armed force can not deliberate; it is passive and obedient. No
armed body can make requisitions nor demand assistance of any
kind, but from the civil authorities, and in the mode and form
prescribed by law.
{610}
Article 114.
The Nation and the States will promote foreign immigration and
colonization in accordance with their respective laws.
Article 115.
A law will regulate the manner in which national officers,
upon taking charge of their posts, shall take the oath to
comply with their duties.
Article 116.
The National Executive will negotiate with the Governments of
America over treaties of alliance or confederation.
Article 117.
The law of Nations forms a part of the National Legislation;
its dispositions will be specially in force in cases of civil
war, which can be terminated by treaties between the
belligerents who will have to respect the humanitarian customs
of Christians and civilized nations, the guarantee of life being,
in every case, inviolable.
Article 118.
This constitution can be reformed by the National Legislature
if the legislatures of the States desire it, but there shall
never be any reform except in the parts upon which the
majority of the States coincide; also a reform can be made
upon one or more points when two-thirds of the members of the
National Legislature, deliberating separately and by the
proceedings established to sanction the laws, shall accord it;
but, in this second case, the amendment voted shall be
submitted to the legislatures of the States, and it will stand
sanctioned in the point or points that may have been ratified
by them.
Article 119.
This constitution will take effect from the day of its
official promulgation in each State, and in all public acts
and official documents there will be cited the date of the
Federation to begin with February 20, 1859, and the date of
the law to begin with March 28, 1864.
Article 120.
The constitutional period for the offices of the General
Administration of the Republic will continue to be computed
from February 20, 1882, the date on which the reformed
constitution took effect.
Article 121.
For every act of civil and political life of the States of the
Federation, its basis of population is that which is
determined in the last census approved by the National
Legislature.
Article 122.
The Federal Constitution of April 27, 1881, is repealed. Done
in Caracas, in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Corps,
and sealed with the seal of Congress on the 9th day of April,
1891. The 28th year of the Law and the 33rd year of the
Federation.
(Here follow the signatures of the Presidents,
Vice-Presidents, and Second Vice-Presidents of the Senate and
Chamber of Deputies, together with those of the Senators and
Deputies of the various States, followed by those of the
President and the ministers of his cabinet.)
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
----------CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA: End----------
CONSTITUTION OF THE WATAUGA ASSOCIATION
(the first Western American Commonwealth).
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.
The "Constitutions of Clarendon" were a series of declarations
drawn up by a council which King Henry II. of England convened
at Clarendon, near Winchester, in 1164, and which were
intended to determine the law on various points in dispute
between the Crown and the laity, on one side, and the Church
on the other. The issues in question were those which brought
Henry into collision with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of
Canterbury. The general provisions embodied in the
Constitutions of Clarendon "would now be scarcely challenged
in the most Catholic country in the world.
1. During the vacancy of any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey,
or priory of royal foundation, the estates were to be in the
custody of the Crown. Elections to these preferments were to
be held in the royal chapel, with the assent of the king and
council.
2. In every suit to which a clerk was a party, proceedings
were to commence before the king's justices, and these
justices were to decide whether the case was to be tried
before a spiritual or a civil court. If it was referred to a
spiritual court, a civil officer was to attend to watch the
trial, and if a clerk was found guilty of felony the Church
was to cease to protect him.
3. No tenant-in-chief of the king, or officer of his
household, was to be excommunicated, or his lands laid under
an interdict, until application had been first made to the
king, or, in his absence, to the chief justice.
4. Laymen were not to be indicted in a bishop's court, either
for perjury or other similar offence, except in the bishop's
presence by a lawful prosecutor and with lawful witnesses. If
the accused was of so high rank that no prosecutor would
appear, the bishop might require the sheriff to call a jury to
inquire into the case.
5. Archbishops, bishops, and other great persons were
forbidden to leave the realm without the king's permission.
6. Appeals were to be from the archdeacon to the bishop, from
the bishop to the archbishop, from the archbishop to the king,
and no further; that, by the king's mandate, the case might be
ended in the archbishop's court.
The last article the king afterwards explained away. It was
one of the most essential, but he was unable to maintain it;
and he was rash, or he was ill-advised, in raising a second
question, on which the pope would naturally be sensitive,
before he had disposed of the first."
J. A. Froude, Life and Times of Becket, pages 31-32.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
CONSTITUTIONS, Roman Imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
CONSUL, Roman.
When the Romans had rid themselves of their kings and
established a republic, or, rather, an aristocratic
government, "the civil duties of the king were given to two
magistrates, chosen for a year, who were at first called
'prætores' or generals, 'judices' or judges, or consules (cf.
con 'together' and salio 'to leap') or 'colleagues.' In the
matter of their power, no violent departure was made from the
imperium of the king. The greatest limitation on the consuls
was the short period for which they were at the head of the
state; but even here they were thought of, by a fiction, as
voluntarily abdicating at the expiration of their term, and as
nominating their successors, although they were required to
nominate the men who had already been selected in the 'comitia
centuriata.' Another limitation was the result of the dual
character of the magistracy. The imperium was not divided
between the consuls, but each possessed it in full, as the
king had before. When, therefore, they did not agree, the veto
of the one prevailed over the proposal of the other, and there
was no action."
A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Constitution, chapter 4.
{611}
"As judges, the consuls occupied altogether the place of the
kings. They decided the legal disputes of the citizens either
personally or by deputy. Their criminal jurisdiction was
probably limited to the most important cases. ... In the
warlike state of the Romans the military character of the
consuls was no doubt most prominent and most important. When
the consul led the army into the field he possessed the
unlimited military power of the kings (the imperium). He was
entrusted with the direction of the war, the distribution of
the booty, and the first disposal of the conquered land. ...
The oldest designation for the consuls, therefore, was derived
from their military quality, for they were called prætors,
that is, commanders. It was, however, precisely in war that
the division of power among two colleagues must often have
proved prejudicial ... and the necessity of unity in the
direction of affairs was felt to be indispensable. The
dictatorship served this purpose. By decree of the senate one
of the consuls could be charged with naming a dictator for six
months, and in this officer the full power of the king was
revived for a limited period. The dictatorship was a formal
suspension of the constitution of the republic. ... Military
was substituted for common law, and Rome, during the time of
the dictatorship, was in a state of siege."
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1,
and book 6, chapter 3-5.
In the later years of the Roman empire, "two consuls were
created by the sovereigns of Rome and Constantinople for the
sole purpose of giving al date to the year and a festival to
the people. But the expenses of this festival, in which the
wealthy and the vain aspired to surpass their predecessors,
insensibly arose to the enormous sum of four score thousand
pounds; the wisest senators declined a useless honour which
involved the certain ruin of their families, and to this
reluctance I should impute the frequent chasms in the last age
of the consular Fasti. ... The succession of consuls finally
ceased in the thirteenth year of Justinian [A. D. 541] whose
despotic temper might be gratified by the final extinction of
a title which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom.
Yet the annual consulship still lived in the minds of the
people; they fondly expected its speedy restoration ... and
three centuries elapsed after the death of Justinian before
that obsolete dignity, which had been suppressed by custom,
could be abolished by law. The imperfect mode of
distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate was
usefully supplied by the date of a permanent era."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"There were no consuls in 531 and 532. The Emperor held the
office alone in 533, and with a colleague in 534. Belisarius
was sole consul in 535. The two following years, having no
consuls of their own, were styled the First and Second after
the Consulship of Belisarius. John of Cappadocia gave his name
to the year 538, and the years 539 and 540 had again consuls,
though one only for each year. In 541 Albinus Basilius sat in
the curule chair, and he was practically the last of the long
list of warriors, orators, demagogues, courtiers, which began
(in the year 500 B. C.) with the names of Lucius Junius Brutus
and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. All the rest of the years of
Justinian, twenty-four in number, were reckoned as Post
Consulatum Basilii."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders.
book 5, chapter 14.
See, also, ROME B. C. 500.
CONSULAR TRIBUNES, Roman.
The plebeians of Rome having demanded admission for their
order to the consulship, a compromise was arranged, B. C. 444,
which settled that, thereafter, "the people should be free to
elect either consuls--that is, patricians according to the old
law--or in their place other officers under the title of
'military tribunes with consular power,' consisting of
patricians and plebeians. ... It is not reported in what
respect the official competency of the consular tribunes was
to differ from that of the consuls. Still, so much is plain,
that the difference consisted not alone in name. The number of
the consular tribunes was in the beginning fixed at three."
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 11.
CONSULATE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
CONTINENTAL ARMY.
"The Continentals" of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST).
CONTINENTAL CURRENCY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).
CONTINENTAL SYSTEM OF NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802, and 1806-1810.
CONTIONES, OR CONCIONES.
The contiones, or conciones, at Rome, were assemblies of the
people, "less formal than the comitia," held for the mere
purpose of discussing public questions, and incapable of
passing any binding resolution. "They could not be called
together by anybody except the magistrates, neither had every
man the liberty of speaking in them, of making proposals or of
declaring his opinion; ... but even in this limited manner
public questions could be discussed and the people could be
enlightened. ... The custom of discussing public questions in
the contiones became general after the comitia of the tribes
had obtained full legislative competency."
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 1.
See, also, COMITIA CURIATA.
CONTRABANDS.
In the early part of the American civil war of 1861-65, the
escaped slaves of the Confederates, who came within the Union
lines, were called contrabands, General Butler having supplied
the term by declaring them to be "contraband of war."
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).
CONTRERAS, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
CONVENT,
See MONASTERY.
CONVENTICLE ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
CONVENTION,
The French National, of the great Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST),
and 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1705 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
CONVOCATION.
The assemblies of the clergy in the two ecclesiastical
provinces of England are called the Convocation of Canterbury
and the Convocation of York. The former, which is the superior
body, frequently receives the name of Convocation, simply. It
is constituted upon the model of Parliament, and is, in fact,
the Parliament of the Church of England. It has two Houses:
the upper one consisting of the Archbishop and his Bishops;
the lower one composed of deans, archdeacons and proctors,
representing the inferior clergy. The Convocation of York has
but one House. Since 1716 Convocation has possessed slight
powers.
{612}
CONWAY CABAL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
COOMASSIE, Burning of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
COPAIC REEDS.
See BŒOTIA.
COPAN, Ruins of.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
and MEXICO, ANCIENT.
COPEHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COPEHAN FAMILY.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1362.
Taken and pillaged by the Hanseatic League.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1658-1660.
Sieges by Charles X. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1700.
Surrender to Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1801.
Bombardment by the English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1807.
Bombardment of the city by the English.
Seizure of the fleet.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
----------COPENHAGEN: End----------
COPPERHEADS.
During the American Civil War, the Democratic Party in the
Northern States "comprised two well-recognized classes: The
Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called 'Copperheads,'
who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for
the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a
vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the
Union."
J. A. Logan, The Great Conspiracy, page 574, foot-note.
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
COPREDY BRIDGE, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).
COPTS, The.
The descendants of the ancient Egyptian race, who form to this
day the larger part of the population of Egypt.
See EGYPT: ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE.
COPTOS.
Destroyed by Diocletian.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
COR, The.
See EPHAH.
CORBIE,
Spanish capture of (1636).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
CORCYRA.
See KORKYRA.
CORDAY, Charlotte, and the assassination of Marat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).
CORDELIERS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
CORDELIERS, Club of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.
CORDOVA (Spain): A. D. 711.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
CORDOVA: A. D. 756-1031.
The Caliphate at.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 756-1031.
CORDOVA: A. D. 1235.
Capture by the King of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
----------CORDOVA: End----------
CORDOVA (Mexico), Treaty of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
CORDYENE.
See GORDYENE.
COREA.
See COREA in Supplement (volume 5).
COREISH, KOREISH.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A.. D. 609-632.
COREY, Martha and Giles,
The execution for witchcraft of.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
CORFINIUM, Cæsar's Capture of.
See ROME: B. C. 50-49.
CORFU, Ancient.
See KORKYRA.
CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880.
Since the fall of the Greek Empire.
Corfu was won by the Venetians in the early years of the Latin
conquest of the Greek empire (1216), but was presently lost,
to come back again into the possession of the republic 170
years later. "No part of Greece has been so often cutoff from
the Greek body. Under Pyrrhos and Agathoklês, no less than
under Michael Angelos and Roger, it obeyed an Epeirot or
Sicilian master. ... At last, after yet another turn of
Sicilian rule, it passed for 400 years [1386-. 1797] to the
great commonwealth [of Venice]. In our own day Corfu was not
added to free Greece till long after the deliverance of Attica
and Peloponnesos. But, under so many changes of foreign
masters, the island has always remained part of Europe and of
Christendom. Alone among the Greek lands, Corfu has never
passed under barbarian rule. It has seen the Turk only, for
one moment, as an invader [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718], for
another moment as a nominal overlord."
E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, page 408.
See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.
----------CORFU: End----------
CORINIUM.
A Roman city in Britain, on the site of which is the modern
city of Cirencester. Some of the richest mosaic pavements
found in England have been uncovered there.
T. Wright. Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
CORINTH.
Corinth, the chief city and state, in ancient times, of the
narrow isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with northern
Greece, "owed everything to her situation. The double sea by
the isthmus, the confluence of the high road of the whole of
Hellas, the rocky citadel towering aloft over land and sea,
through which rushed--or around which flowed--an abundance of
springs; all these formed so extraordinary a commixture of
advantages, that, if the intercourse with other countries
remained undisturbed, they could not but call forth an
important city. As in Argolis, so on the isthmus also, other
besides Dorian families had in the days of the migration
helped to found the new state. ... By the side of the Dorian,
five non-Dorian tribes existed in Corinth, attesting the
multitude and variety of population, which were kept together
as one state by the royal power of the Heraclidæ, supported by
the armed force of the Dorians. In the ninth century [B. C.]
the royal power passed into the hands of a branch of the
Heraclidæ deriving its descent from Bacchis [one of the
earliest of the kings]; and it was in the extraordinary genius
of this royal line that the greatness of the city originated.
The Bacchiadæ opened the city to the immigration of the
industrious settlers who hoped to make their fortunes more
speedily than elsewhere at this meeting point of all Greek
high-roads of commerce. They cherished and advanced every
invention of importance. ... They took commerce into their own
hands, and established the tramway on the isthmus, along which
ships were, on rollers, transported from one gulf to the
other. ... They converted the gulf which had hitherto taken
its name from Crisa into the Corinthian, and secured its
narrow inlet by means of the fortified place of Molycria. ...
They continued their advance along the coast and occupied the
most important points on the Achelous."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 1.
{613}
CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
Constitutional Revolution.
End of Monarchy.
The prytanes.
Commercial progress.
A violent contention which arose between two branches of the
Bacchiadæ "no doubt gave the nobles of Corinth power and
opportunity to end the struggle by a change in the
constitution, and by the discontinuance of the monarchy; this
occurred in the year 745 B. C., after eight generations of
kings. ... Yet the place at the head of the commonwealth was
not to be entirely taken away from the ancient royal house. A
presiding chief (a prytanis), newly elected each year by the
whole nobility from the members of the royal race, was
henceforward to conduct the government [see PRYTANIS]. It was
a peculiar arrangement which this change introduced into
Corinth. We may assume that the sovereignty was transferred to
the nobles collectively, or to their representative. This
representation seems to have been so regulated that each of
the eight tribes sent an equal number of members to the
Gerousia, i. e. the council of elders. ... But the first of
these eight tribes, to which belonged the royal family, was
privileged. From it was chosen the head of the state, an
office for which only a Bacchiad was eligible--that is, only a
member of the old royal house, which took the foremost place
in the first tribe. This clan of the Bacchiadæ is said to have
contained 200 men. 'They were numerous and wealthy,' says
Strabo. Accordingly the royal house did not exclusively retain
the first rank in the state, but only in conjunction with the
families connected with it by kindred and race. ... The new
constitution of Corinth, the government by nobles, under the
dynastic presidency of one family, became a type for other
cantons. It was a Corinthian of the Bacchiadæ who, twenty or
thirty years after the introduction of the prytanes, regulated
the oligarchy of the Thebans and gave them laws (about 725 B.
C.) ... The fall of the monarchy in Corinth at first brought
with it disastrous consequences for the power and prestige of
the commonwealth. The communities of the Megarians--either
because the new government made increased demands upon them,
or because they considered their allegiance had ceased with
the cessation of monarchy, and thought the moment was
favourable--deserted Corinth and asserted their freedom. The
five communities on the isthmus united together around the
territory of Megara, lying in the plain by the Saronic Gulf,
where the majority of the Doric tribes had settled; the city
of Megara, in the vicinity of two ancient fortresses ...
became the chief centre of the communities, now associated in
one commonwealth. ... The important progress of Corinth under
the prytany of the Bacchiadæ was not due to successes upon the
mainland, but in another sphere. For navigation and commerce
no canton in Hellas was more favourably situated. Lying on the
neck of the isthmus, it extended from sea to sea, an
advantageous position which had indeed first attracted the
Phœnicians thither in ancient times. ... Corinth, says
Thucydides, was always from the first a centre of commerce,
and abounded in wealth; for the population within and without
the Peloponnesus communicated with each other more in ancient
times by land across the isthmus than by sea. But when the
Hellenes became more practised in navigation, the Corinthians
with their ships put down piracy and established marts on both
sides; and through this influx of riches their city became
very powerful."
M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
CORINTH: B. C. 509-506.
Opposition to the desire of Sparta to restore tyranny at
Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
CORINTH: B. C. 481-479.
Congress and organized Hellenic union against Persia.
See GREECE: B. C.481-479.
CORINTH: B. C. 458-456.
Alliance with Ægina in unsuccessful war with Athens and Megara.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
CORINTH: B. C. 440.
Opposition to Spartan interference with Athens in Samos.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
CORINTH: B. C. 435-432.
Quarrel with Korkyra.
Interference of Athens.
Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
CORINTH: B. C. 432.
Great sea-fight with the Korkyrians and Athenians.
See GREECE: B. C. 432.
CORINTH: B. C. 429-427.
The Peloponnesian War: sea-fights and defeats.
Fruitless aid to the Mitylenæans.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
CORINTH: B. C. 421.
Opposition to the Peace of Nicias.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
CORINTH: B. C. 415-413.
Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
CORINTH: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta.
The Corinthian War.
Battle on the Nemea.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
CORINTH: B. C. 368-365.
Attempt of Epaminondas to surprise the city.
Attempt of the Athenians.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
CORINTH: B. C. 337.
Congress of Greek states to acknowledge the hegemony of Philip
of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
CORINTH: B. C. 244.
Capture by Antigonus Gonatus, king of Macedon.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.
CORINTH: B. C. 243-146.
In the Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
CORINTH: B. C. 146.
Sack by the Romans.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
CORINTH: B. C. 44.
Restoration by Cæsar.
"In the desolate land of Greece, Cæsar, besides other plans,
... busied himself above all with the restoration of Corinth.
Not only was a considerable burgess-colony conducted thither,
but a plan was projected for cutting through the isthmus, so
as to avoid the dangerous circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus
and to make the whole traffic between Italy and Asia pass
through the Corintho-Saronic gulf."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 11.
"Cæsar sent to Corinth a large number of freedmen, and other
settlers were afterwards sent by Augustus; but it is certain
that many Greeks came to live in the new Corinth, for it
became a Greek town. Corinth was a mass of ruins when the new
settlers came, and while they were removing the rubbish, they
grubbed up the burial places, where they found a great number
of earthen figures and bronze urns, which they sold at a high
price and filled Rome with them."
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 32.
{614}
"Corinth rapidly rose under these auspices, became a centre of
commerce and art, and took the lead among the cities of
European Hellas. Here was established the seat of the Roman
government of Achaia, and its population, though the
representations we have received of it are extravagant,
undoubtedly exceeded that of any Grecian rival."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.
CORINTH: A. D. 267.
Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
CORINTH: A. D. 395.
Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
CORINTH: A. D. 1146.
Sacked by the Normans of Sicily.
Abduction of silk weavers.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
CORINTH: A. D. 1445.
Destruction by the Turks.
The fortifications of the isthmus of Corinth were stormed and
the Peloponnesus invaded by Amurath II. in 1445. "Corinth
itself, a city sanctified by its antiquity, by its gods, by
its arts, by the beauty of its women, by its fountains, its
cypresses, its very ruins themselves, whence its unrivalled
situation had always restored it, fell anew, buried in its
flames, by the hands of Tourakhan, that ancient and ambitious
vizier of Amurath. Its flames were seen from Athens, from
Ægina, from Lepanto, from Cytheron, from Pindus. The
inhabitants, as also those of Patras, were led into slavery in
Asia, to the number of 60,000."
A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, section 10.
CORINTH: A. D. 1463-1464.
Unsuccessful siege by the Venetians.
Fortification of the Isthmus.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
CORINTH: A. D. 1687.
Taken by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
CORINTH: A. D. 1822.
Revolt, siege and capture by the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------CORINTH: End----------
CORINTH, Mississippi, Siege and Battle.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).
CORINTH CANAL, The.
"On Sunday [August 6, 1893] the canal across the Isthmus of
Corinth--[projected by Cæsar--see ROME: B. C. 45-44] begun by
Nero, and completed, nearly 2,000 years later, by a Greek
engineer, M. Matsas--was opened by the King of Greece, who
steamed through the canal in his yacht, accompanied by a
procession consisting of four Greek torpedo-boats and other
vessels, including three English men-of-war and an English
despatch-boat. The canal ... will be practicable for all but
the largest vessels."
The Spectator, Aug. 12, 1893.
[Transcriber's note: "It was planned by the Hungarian
architects István Türr and Béla Gerster... Its
construction was started by a French company, which ceased
works only after the two ends had been dug, due to
financial difficulties. A Greek company took over, the main
contractor being Antonis Matsas, and continued (and
completed) the project."
http://wiki.phantis.com]
CORINTHIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
CORINTHIAN WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
CORIONDI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.
CORITANI, OR CORITAVI.
A British tribe which occupied the lower valley of the Trent
and its vicinity.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CORN LAWS (English) and their repeal.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1815-1828; 1836-1839; 1842; and 1845-1846.
CORNABII, OR CORNAVII, The.
An ancient British tribe which dwelt near the mouths of the
Dee and the Mersey.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CORNWALL, Duchy of.
In the division of the spoils of his conquest of England,
William the Conqueror gave to his brother Robert almost the
whole shire of Cornwall, besides other vast estates. "Out of
those possessions," says Mr. Freeman, "arose that great
Earldom, and afterwards Duchy, of Cornwall, which was deemed
too powerful to be trusted in the hands of any but men closely
akin to the royal house, and the remains of which have for
ages formed the appanage of the heir-apparent to the Crown."
See, also, WALES, PRINCE OF.
CORNWALLIS, Charles, Lord.
In the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;
1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
Indian administration.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
Irish administration.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
CORON, Battle of (B. C. 281).
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.
CORONADO, Expedition of.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
CORONATION.
"The royal consecration in its most perfect form included both
coronation and unction. The wearing of a crown was a most
ancient sign of royalty, into the origin of which it is
useless now to inquire; but the solemn rite of crowning was
borrowed from the Old Testament by the Byzantine Cæsars; the
second Theodosius was the first emperor crowned with religious
ceremonies in Christian times. The introduction of the rite of
anointing is less certainly ascertained. It did not always
accompany coronation, and, although usual with the later
emperors is not recorded in the case of the earlier ones."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6, section 60.
CORONATION STONE.
See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;
also, LIA FAIL.
CORONEIA, Battles of (B. C. 447 and B. C. 394).
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445; and B. C. 399-387.
CORPS DE BELGIQUE.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, The.
"The Corpus Juris Civilis represents the Roman law in the form
which it assumed at the close of the ancient period (a
thousand years after the decemviral legislation of the Twelve
Tables), and through which mainly it has acted upon modern
times. It was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (the
Western ceased in 476 A. D.) under the Emperor Justinian, ...
who reigned 527-565 A. D. The plan of the work, as laid out
by [his great law-minister] Tribonian, included two principal
parts, to be made from the constitutions of the Roman
emperors, and from the treatises of the Roman lawyers. The
constitutiones' (law-utterances) of the emperors consisted
of--
1. 'Orationes,' proposals of law, submitted to and adopted by
the Senate;
2. 'Edicta,' laws issued directly by the emperor as head of
the state;
3. 'Mandata,' instructions addressed by the emperor to high
officers of law and justice;
4. 'Decreta,' decisions given by the emperor in cases brought
before him by appeal or otherwise;
5. 'Rescripta,' answers returned by the emperor when consulted
on questions of law by parties in a suit or by magistrates.
{615}
... Three or four collections had
already been made, in which the most important constitutions
were selected from the mass, presented in a condensed form,
and arranged according to their subjects. The last and most
elaborate of these collections was the Theodosian Code,
compiled about a century before the accession of Justinian; it
is still in great part extant. ... The new Codex
Constitutionem, prepared in little more than a year, was
published in April, 529. The next work was to digest the
treatises of the most eminent law writers. Thirty-nine were
selected, nearly all of whom lived between 100 B. C. and 250
A. D. Their books (2,000 in number) were divided among a body
of collaborators (sixteen besides Tribonian), each of whom
from the books assigned to him extracted what he thought
proper. ... and putting the extracts (9,000 in all) under an
arranged series of heads. ... The Digest--or Pandects
(all-receiving), as it is also called from the multiplicity of
its sources--was issued with authority of law, in December,
533. ... While the Digest or Pandects forms much the largest
fraction of the Corpus Juris, its relative value and
importance are far more than proportionate to its extent. The
Digest is, in fact, the soul of the Corpus. ... To bring the
Codex Constitutionem into better conformity with the Digest,
it was revised in 534 and issued as we now have it in November
of that year. ... The Corpus Juris includes also an elementary
text-book, the Institutiones (founded on the 'institutiones' of
Gaius, who flourished about 150). ... The Institutes, Digest
and Codex were given, as a complete body of law, to the
law-schools at Constantinople, Rome, Berytus, Alexandria,
Cæsarea, to be studied in their five years' curriculum. In the
courts it was to supersede all earlier authorities. ... Later
statutes of Justinian, arranged in order of time, form the
Novels ('novellae constitutione,' most of them in Greek), the
last component of the Corpus Juris."
J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 1.
ALSO IN: J. E. Goudsmit, The Pandects.
CORREGIDOR.
See ALCALDE.
CORSICA: Early history.
"The original inhabitants of Corsica are supposed to have been
Ligurians, but at a very early period the people had
commercial intercourse with Spain, Ionia and Tuscany. The
island was subsequently occupied by the Carthaginians, who,
however, were expelled by the Romans during the first Punic
war. A few years later Corsica came under the dominion of
Rome, and that sway was nominally maintained until the
downfall of the Empire. It then fell under the dominion of the
Vandals, and after their expulsion owned successively the rule
of the Goths, the Saracens and the Pisans, and finally of the
Genoese. It came into the possession of the latter people in
the year 1120. Pisa subsequently made several attempts to
drive out her rivals, but they were in the end void of
results. But in 1448, Genoa, having sustained great losses in
the constant wars in which she was engaged, was induced to
surrender the administration of Corsica and of her colonies in
the Levant to a corporation known as the Bank of St George.
From that time the island was administered by governors
appointed by the Bank of St George, almost precisely in the
manner in which, in England, up to 1859, the East Indies were
administered by an 'imperium in imperio.'"
G. B. Malleson, Studies from Genoese History, chapter 3.
CORSICA: A. D, 1558-1559.
Revolt against the Genoese rule, and re-subjection.
See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
The Struggle for independence.
Romance of King Theodore.
The Paolis.
Cession to France.
The revolt of 1558 was renewetl in 1564, but ended in 1567,
upon the death of its leader, Sampiero. For the next century
and a half, Corsica remained inactive; "depressed and
miserable under renewed Genoese exactions and tyrannies, but
too exhausted to resume hostilities. In 1729, however,
fighting again broke out, suddenly roused by one of the many
private wrongs then pressing upon the lower orders, and the
rebellion soon spread over the whole island. It was well
organized under two leaders of energy and ability, and was
more determined in its measures than ever. ... Genoa had
recourse to the emperor of Germany, from whom she bought
several thousand mercenaries, who were sent across the sea to
try their skill upon these unconquerable islanders. ... The
courage and chivalry of his insular foes ... won for them the
regard of the opposing General Wachtendonk; and, chiefly
through his mediation, a treaty, supposed to be favourable to
the islanders, was concluded between Genoa and the Corte
legislative assembly in 1732. Wachtendonk remained in the
island another year to see the treaty carried out, and in
June, 1734, the German general returned to his own country.
... But he had scarcely retired before the treaty was broken.
Genoa began anew her system of illegal arrests and attempted
assassinations; and, once more, the people arose under
Hyacinth Paoli, an obscure native of the little village of
Morosaglia, but a man of spirit and talent, and a scholar.
Under the direction of this man, and of Giafferi, his
colleague, a democratic constitution, in the highest degree
prudent and practical, was framed for the Corsican people. ...
Early in the next year occurred a strange and romantic
adventure in this adventureful country. A man, handsome and
well-dressed, surrounded by obsequious courtiers, and attended
by every luxury, landed in the island from a vessel
well-furnished with gold, ammunition, and arms. This man was a
German adventurer, Baron Theodore von Neuhoff, who, after a
romantic youth, had suddenly conceived a desire to become king
of Corsica. He was a man of great talent and personal
fascination, of good judgment, and enthusiastic disposition.
He had fallen in love with the bravery and determination of
the Corsicans, and longed to head such a nation. He had put
himself into communication with the leading islanders; and,
having really some little influence at the continental courts,
persuaded them that he had much more. He offered to obtain
such assistance from foreign potentates, by his persuasions,
as should effectually oust the Genoese; and, in return,
requested the crown of Corsica. His genius and his enthusiasm
were so great, and his promises so dazzling, that, after some
hesitation, the poor Corsicans, in their despair, seized upon
this last straw; and in March, 1736, Theodore was crowned
king. His exertions for the good of this country were
untiring. He established manufactures and promoted with all
his power art and commerce, at the same time that, with all
the force of his genius, he endeavoured to persuade foreign
powers to lend their assistance to his new subjects in the
field.
{616}
His style of living meanwhile was regal and sumptuous. ...
Towards the conclusion of his first year of sovereignty,
Theodore left Corsica on a continental tour, with the avowed
object of hastening the promised succour. In two years he
returned, bringing with him three large and several smaller
war vessels, handsomely laden with ammunition, which had
actually been raised by means of his talents and persuasive
faculties, chiefly amongst the Dutch. But, meanwhile, the
Corsicans had had other affairs to which to attend. France had
interfered at the request of Genoa; and negotiations were
actively going on, which the arrival of the pseudo-king could
only interrupt. Theodore, although now so well attended, found
himself unheeded and disregarded; and after a few months was
forced to leave his new kingdom to its fate, and to return to
the continent. Five years later, in 1743, he again returned,
again well equipped, this time with English vessels, but with
the same ill success. Convinced now that his chance was over
and his dream of royalty destroyed, Theodore returned to
England with a sore heart, spending his remaining years in
this asylum for dethroned kings and ruined adventurers. His
tomb may be seen in Westminster Abbey. For the next five and
twenty years the war continued between Corsica and Genoa,
still fought out on the blood-deluged plains of the unhappy
little island. But the republic of Genoa was now long past her
prime, and her energies were fading into senility; and, had it
not been for the ever-increasing assistance of France, her
intrepid foes would long ere this have got the better of her.
In May, 1768, a treaty was signed between Genoa and France, by
which the republic ceded her now enfeebled claims on Corsica
to her ally, and left her long-oppressed victim to fight the
contest out with the French troops. During this time, first
Gaffori, then Pasquale Paoli, were the leaders of the people.
Gaffori, a man of refinement, and a hero of skill and
intrepidity, was murdered in a vendetta in 1753, and in 1755
Pasquale, youngest son of the old patriot Hyacinth Paoli, left
his position as officer in the Neapolitan service, and landed,
by the general desire of his own people, at Aleria, to
undertake the command of the Corsican army. ... From 1764 to
1768 a truce was concluded between the foes. ... In August,
1768, the truce was to expire; but, before the appointed day
had arrived, an army of 20,000 French suddenly swooped down
upon the luckless island. ... It was a hopeless struggle for
Corsica; but the heroism of the undaunted people moved all
Europe to sympathy. ... The Corsicans at first got the better
of their formidable foe, at the Bridge of Golo, in the taking
of Borgo, and in other lesser actions. ... Meanwhile, the
country was being destroyed, and the troops becoming
exhausted. ... The battle of Ponte Nuovo, on the 9th of May,
1769, at once and forever annihilated the Corsican cause. ...
After this victory, the French rapidly gained possession of
the whole island, and shortly afterwards the struggle was
abandoned. ... In the same year, 1769, Napoleon Buonaparte was
born in the house out of the Place du Marché at Ajaccio. 'I
was born,' he said himself in a letter to Paoli, 'the year my
country died.'"
G. Forde, A Lady's Tour in Corsica, volume 2, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
P. Fitzgerald, Kings and Queens of an Hour, chapter 1.
J. Boswell, Journal of a Tour to Corsica.
Corsica: A. D. 1794.
Conquest by the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
Corsica: A. D. 1796.
Evacuated by the English.
Reoccupied by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
----------Corsica: End----------
CORTENUOVA, Battle of (1236).
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.
CORTES, HERNANDO,
Conquest of Mexico by.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 to 1521-1524.
CORTES, The early Spanish.
The old monarchical constitutions of Castile and Aragon.
"The earliest instance on record of popular representation in
Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century
antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city
had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its
representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the
number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name
signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in
Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously
to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from
any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The
nomination of these was originally vested in the householders
at large, but was afterwards confined to the
municipalities,--a most mischievous alteration, which
subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence
of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the
higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of
moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the
transaction of other business, their own petitions were
presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the
validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make
their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from
the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations
so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain
contended for even there till a much later period than that
now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of
the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction
was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts;
for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of
the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The
extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the
whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the
sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state,
whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the
encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did
eventually desert them in their utmost need. ... The Aragonese
cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos
hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the
knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every
denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The
ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar
privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of
this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum.
{617}
The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from
the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to
have been a component of the national legislature until more
than a century and a half after the admission of the commons.
Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in
Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. ... The
commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For
this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of
their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic
institutions naturally extended to other parts of the
Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to
the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of
immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were
permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a
very early period we find them employed in offices of public
trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission
into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133,
several years earlier than the commencement of popular
representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending
two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its
magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever
might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been
once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a
statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been
annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little
regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for
some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown,
whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded
from their deliberations. ... It was in the power of any
member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his
veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might
even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house,
and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business
during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending
even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too
invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its
consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be
inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until
the reign of Philip II., in 1502. ... The cortes exercised the
highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or
judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters
of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law
was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and
it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to
its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown,
removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and
domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power,
in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as
well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on
the liberties of the nation. ... The statute-book affords the
most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the
guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in
them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security
both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets
the eye in this venerable record contains the General
Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated,
of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at
Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for
the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining
the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the
security of property against exactions of the crown; and for
the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal
corporations and the different orders of nobility. ... The
Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the
broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its
confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. ... The judicial
functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by
writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it
the name of the General Court."
W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella, introduction, section 1-2.
"Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil
polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders
of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered
violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they
were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides
these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in
the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was
ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the
coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders
among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile
became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public
spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times,
to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too
unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a
just balance against the crown. ... Perhaps in no European
monarchy except our own was the form of government more
interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law
and justice with the royal authority. ... Blancas quotes a
noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always
heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing
the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the
realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk
would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands
more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated
the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the
reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they
compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General
Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full
and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They
further "established a positive right of maintaining their
liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of
Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent
conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so
completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of
the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.
... That watchfulness over public liberty which originally
belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres ... and which was
afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union,
became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and
functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional
history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has
been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous
magistrate. ... But I do not perceive that his functions were,
in any essential respect, different from those of the chief
justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among
the judges of the King's Bench. ...
{618}
All the royal as well as territorial judges were
bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties
arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight
days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made
penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the
execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared
null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any
business after his prohibition. ... There are two parts of his
remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are
the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of
manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of
'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of
King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from
the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese
juris firma was of more extensive operation. ... The process
termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal
liberty as that of juris firma did for property."
H. Hallam, The Middle Age, chapter 4 (volume 2).
For some account of the loss of the old constitutional
liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,
See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
"The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest,
like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,'
and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad
audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business
was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly
should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people;
and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the
first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the
Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to
determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon
in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early
monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the
assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary
to render the king's election valid. The presence of the
citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval
and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council
of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal
'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these
latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and
making their influence more and more felt, there is no record
of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked
the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis,
et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis
civitatibus'; from this time the three estates--clergy,
nobles, citizens--were always represented in the Cortes of
Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did
not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of
Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more
than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in
1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of
Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors
of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of
both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true
representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal
than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and
in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ
of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of
Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities
represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200
deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number
sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were
represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality
either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere
spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative.
Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by
the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary
was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to
the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and
petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not
in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent
of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the
death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian
dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old
liberties might yet have been recovered. ... With the Cortes
of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates.
The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the
Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become
servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."
W. Webster, Review of Colmeiro's
"Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla"
(Academy, Aug. 16, 1884).
CORUNNA, Battle of (1809).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
CORUPEDION, Battle of.
A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which
Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was
defeated by Seleucus, and slain.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 60.
CORVÉE.
One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old
regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over
his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own
profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their
oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at
the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely
abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for
some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."
A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France
before 1789, note 4 E. (p. 499).
CORVUS, The Roman.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
COS, OR KOS.
One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the
Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to
Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the
celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter
Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian
confederacy.
COSIMO DE' MEDICI,
The ascendancy at Florence of.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.
COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.
See DEMIURGI.
{619}
COSSACKS, The.
"The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of
ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in
opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is
properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of
so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for
anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything,
however, would seem to favour the belief that the word
Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity
of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. ... Sherer, in his
'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the
origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not
support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of
historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast
pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country
lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to
the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks.
When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take
possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast
inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D.
1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many
others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of
this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the
Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned
to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that
river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their
brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were,
incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk,
who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice.
... At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the
Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took
refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by
that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure
retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position,
acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not
only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence,
but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for
purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and
discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These
latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent
seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical
expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the
parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the
most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however,
with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless,
desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some
degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character
of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more
energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than
had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in
various directions, and from this people, flying at the
advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of
hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and
independent nations. ... [They] ultimately found a permanent
resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the
cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient
compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their
nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the
Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish
Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having
defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna,
conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering
tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his
allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of
Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large
bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the
comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served
under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the
dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently,
an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and
inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine
was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the
protection of the kings of Poland. ... Although there may,
doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to
whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give
as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will
there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal
tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don,
or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in
ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy.
... The Cossacks [of the Don] ... have rendered signal service
to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them
under her protection, without, however, the existence of any
official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their
submission to that power. ... The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain
kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman,
or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this
chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and
implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack
officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a
separate war administration of their own; although they are
compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in
a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged
before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their
condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian
population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The
existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart
of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world,
appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not
as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which
yet remains to be ascertained."
H. Krasinski, The Cossacks of the Ukraine, chapter 1.
The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from
the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a
revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they
were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was
accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.
See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
COSSÆANS, The.
See KOSSÆANS.
COSTA RICA: A. D. 1502.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871.
Independence of Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of
Central America.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
----------COSTA RICA: End----------
COSTANOAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COSTANOAN FAMILY.
COSTER, Laurent, and the invention of printing.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.
COTARII.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.
620
COTHON OF CARTHAGE, The.
"There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one
into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human
hands. ... The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet
long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant
vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it
was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It
could not be approached except through the merchant harbour,
and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could
be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely
surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships.
In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so
that the whole must have presented the appearance of a
splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the
harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."
R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20.
COTSETI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.
COTTON, Reverend John and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
COTTON FAMINE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
COTTON-GIN:
Eli Whitney's invention and its effects.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
COTTON MANUFACTURE:
The great inventions in spinning and weaving.
"Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme
West from the earliest periods of which we have any record.
The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the
Mexicans clothed in cotton. ... But though the use of cotton
had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and
America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the
ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen,
and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain.
Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy,
Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of
Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads;
rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in
Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their
own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed,
cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book,
and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated
by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and
Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding
that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were
woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than
a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton
attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen
manufacturers complained that people were dressing their
children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually
persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed
calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to
extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. ... The taste
for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in
London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was
induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths
from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created
for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. ...
Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really
never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a
combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had
been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the
warp; ... The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers
enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy
workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at
home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of
cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been
made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in
the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it
was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. ...
The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than
that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own
family could supply him with; and the weavers generally
experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient
yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of
two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more
apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand
from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of
Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733],
saved the weaver from this labour. ... Robert Kay, John Kay's
son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able
'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different
coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and
replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the
productive power of each weaver was doubled. ... Carding and
roving were both slowly performed. ... The trade was in this
humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and
unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which
cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a
century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the
neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long
walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn
for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny
accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves
noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an
upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread
was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately
occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a
considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and
thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. ...
Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret
for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known.
His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine,
which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would
throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke
into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself
had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly
assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent
[1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment
to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the
spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture.
But the ... yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had
previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard
enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads
had consequently to be used for this purpose.
{621}
In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from
Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as
a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still
more celebrated machine. ... 'After many years intense and
painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for
spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic
industry which has done more than any other trade to
concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. ... He
passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was
made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread,
after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the
requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher
rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright
succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp.
From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was
first erected was driven by water power, the machine received
the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread
spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of
the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless
if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a
more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright
applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced
revolving cylinders for carding cotton. ... This extraordinary
series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn
at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had
thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn
fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. ... This defect,
however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a
young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in
combining in one machine the various excellences 'of
Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the
former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called
the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and
like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the
twist. ... The effects of Crompton's great invention may be
stated epigrammatically. ... The natives of India could spin a
pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English
succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles.
Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the
weaver. ... The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and
Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn.
... The spinster had beaten the weaver. ... Edmund Cartwright,
a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at
Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the
company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned
on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed
that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills
would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would
never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that
Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving
mill.' ... Within three years he had himself proved that the
invention was practicable by producing the power-loom.
Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had
originated, and within fifty years from the date of his
memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000
power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. ... Other
inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less
wonderful or less beneficial than these. ... Scheele, the
Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching
properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the
French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to
bleaching cloth. ... In the same year in which Watt and Henry
were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a
Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed
calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of
sycamore.' ... This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder
printing. ... Such are the leading inventions, which made
Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in
the world."
S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, volume 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
R. W. C. Taylor, Introduction to a History
of the Factory System, chapter 10.
E. Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain.
A. Ure, The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain.
COULMIERS, Battle of (1870).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
COUNCIL BLUFFS, The Mormons at.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623; 1621-1631; and 1635.
COUNCIL OF BLOOD, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
COUNCIL OF FIVE HUNDRED, The Athenian.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
The French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
COUNCIL OF TEN, The.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
COUNCIL OF THE ANCIENTS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.
See PRIVY COUNCIL.
COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, General or Ecumenical.
There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin
churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)--that is general, or
universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making
twenty in all--as follows:
1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem.
2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325
(see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL).
3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381.
4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.
5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.
6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553.
7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681.
8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.
9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869.
10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123.
11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139.
12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179.
13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.
14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245.
15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274.
16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311.
17. The Council of Constance,
A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418).
18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448).
19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563).
20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).
{622}
COUNT AND DUKE, Roman.
Origin of the titles.
"The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed
[under Constantine and his successors] to eight
masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their
orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the
provinces--three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in
Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia
eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of
Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished,
have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense
that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should
be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a
corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately
applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals
were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were
dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of
honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented
in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which
distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"The Duke and the Count of modern Europe--what are they but
the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman
province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing
up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former
superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was
discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the
Scandinavian Jarl."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.
COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.
In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the
later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts
of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the
household troops, known by the names of Domestici and
Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect
of the earlier days of the Empire. ... Theoretically, their
duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the
Guards."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.
COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.
In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the
Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title
simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. ... In practice,
however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial
Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of
Imperial expenditure. ... The Count of the Sacred Largesses
was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the
Empire."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.
COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.
See SAXON SHORE.
COUNT PALATINE.
See PALATINE, COUNTS.
COUNTER-REFORMATION, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.
COUNTRY PARTY, The.
See ENGLAND; A. D. 1672-1673.
COUP D' ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.
COUREURS DE BOIS.
"Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge
evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that
was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods,
and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and
priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only
were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them,
there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The
bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object
of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the
population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and
order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more
than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of
the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws.
... We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into
forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of
the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an
organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a
general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him
into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in
order that the edicts against them might have time to relent.
The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a
population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight
in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king
ordered that any person going into the woods without a license
should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent
for life to the galleys for the second. ... Under such leaders
as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at
various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a
post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent
settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the
Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it
suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next
comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."
F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapter 17.
COURLAND, Christian conquest of.
See. LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
COURT BARON.
See MANORS.
COURT CUSTOMARY.
See MANORS.
COURT-LEET.
See MANORS,
and SAC AND SOC.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
See CHANCELLOR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
See CURIA REGIS.
COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559;
and A. D. 1686.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See CURIA REGIS.
COURT, SUPREME, of the United States.
See SUPREME COURT.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1382.
Pillaged and burned by the French.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1646.
Siege and capture by the French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1648.
Taken by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND); A. D. 1668.
COURTRAI: A. D. 1679.
Restored to Spain.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
----------COURTRAI: End----------
{623}
COURTRAI, The Battle of.
The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the
barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the
sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of
the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which
was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the
victors in Courtrai cathedral.
G. W. Kitchen, History of France,
book 3, chapter 10, section 2.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.
COURTS OF LOVE.
See PROVENCE: A.D. 1179-1207.
COUTHON,
and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).
COUTRAS, Battle of (1587).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
COVADONGA, Cave of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
COVENANT, The Halfway.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
COVENANT, The Solemn League and.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
COVENANTERS.
The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish
National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638)
and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The
war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated
under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the
persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666; 1669-1679; 1679; and 1681-1689.
COVENANTS, The Scottish.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557-1581; and 1638.
COWBOYS.
During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal
and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army,
well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by
profession, and came to have their name from their
cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful
murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them.
Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."
C. W. Elliott, The New England History, volume 2, page 372.
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
COWPENS, Battle of the (1781).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
CRACOW: A. D. 1702.
Taken by Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794.
Occupied by the Russians.
Rising of the citizens.
Surrender and cession to Austria.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
CRACOW: A. D. 1815.
Creation of the Republic.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846.
Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians.
Extinction of the Republic.
Annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
----------CRACOW: End----------
CRADLE OF LIBERTY.
See FANEUIL HALL.
CRAFT-GUILDS.
See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.
CRAGIE TRACT, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
CRAL.-KRALE.
"The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c.
2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their
native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the
equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from
whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern
Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p.
422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 63, note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See, also,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).
CRANNOGES.
See LAKE DWELLINGS.
CRANNON (KRANNON), Battle of (B. C. 322).
See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.
CRAONNE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to 57-52.
CRATER, Battle of the Petersburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
CRANGALLIDÆ, The.
See HIERODULI.
CRAYFORD, Battle of (A. D. 457).
The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading
Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern
Britain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
CRÉCY, Battle of (1346).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.
On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in
December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges
made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the
Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several
Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of
Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and
1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the
Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union
Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating
committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being
chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873,
recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts,
for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the
Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to
influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of
New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the
proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the
conduct of both members."
A. Johnston, History of American Politics, pages 210-220.
Report of Select Committee
(42d Congress, 3d session, H. R. report no. 77).
ALSO IN:
J. B. Crawford, The Credit Mobilier of America.
CREEKS.
Creek Wars.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL),
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
CREES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
CREFELD, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
CREMA, Siege of (1159-1160).
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
CREMONA: The Roman Colony.
Siege by the Gauls.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
CREMONA: A. D. 69.
Destruction by the Flavians.
See ROME: A, D. 69.
CREMONA: A. D. 1702.
Defeat of the French.
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
{624}
CREOLE.
"In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the
idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The
designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly
belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have
emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or
Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black
Creoles. ... The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish
word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to
foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to
the human race, but also to animals propagated in the
colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole
horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."
J. J. Von Tschudi, Travels in Peru,
chapter 5, and foot-note.
"The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of
a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while
often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin
partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times
and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its
broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance.
For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants
of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied
a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include
any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent,
whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to
social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded
to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood,
and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of
commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a
title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or
thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that
might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens,
cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. ... There
are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles,
these all being included under the distinctive term
'Americans.' ... There seems to be no more serviceable
definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than
to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."
G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218).
CREONES, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
CRESCENT, The Order of the.
A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan,
Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the
first to receive this decoration.
CRESPY IN VALOIS, Treaty of (1544).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
CRETAN LABYRINTH,
See LABYRINTHS.
CRETE.
"The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so
great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not
surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete
were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this
similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation,
by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions,
must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia,
Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old
inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of
subordination. ... It is, however, beyond doubt that
settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a
large portion of the island was subject to them. In the
historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we
find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all
moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its
surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in
their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination
to the principal city. For that each city of the
'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it,
formed also an independent state, will probably not be
supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason
to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were
in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-
G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
CRETE: B. C. 68-66.
The Roman Conquest.
The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their
conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate
and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the
professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman
fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They
soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent
envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the
penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed,
however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in
Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more
were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the
islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle
and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with
equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the
conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there
occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and
Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on
the Cretan soil.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4.
CRETE: A. D. 823.
Conquest by the Saracens.
"The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was
disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes
having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of
Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate
in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes
established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an
active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of
Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with
Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the
Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of
Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed
themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and
establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was
unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an
event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the
strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the
lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of
the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs,
called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete
with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their
permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they
commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their
fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by
an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak,
now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. ... The
Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,
from 716 to 1057, book 1. chapter 3.
{625}
During the stay of these piratical Andalusian Arabs at
Alexandria, "they cut in pieces both friends and foes,
pillaged the churches and mosques, sold above 6,000 Christian
captives, and maintained their station in the capital of Egypt
till they were oppressed by the forces and presence of Almamon
himself."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, chapter 1.
CRETE: A. D. 961-963.
Recovery from the Saracens.
"In the subordinate station of great domestic, or general of
the East, he [Nicephorus Phocas, afterwards emperor, on the
Byzantine throne], reduced the island of Crete, and extirpated
the nest of pirates who had so long defied, with impunity, the
majesty of the Empire. ... Seven months were consumed in the
siege of Candia; the despair of the native Cretans was
stimulated by the frequent aid of their brethren of Africa and
Spain; and, after the massy wall and double ditch had been
stormed by the Greeks, a hopeless conflict was still
maintained in the streets and houses of the city. The whole
island was subdued in the capital, and a submissive people
accepted, without resistance, the baptism of the conqueror."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
CRETE: A. D. 1204-1205.
Acquired by the Venetians.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.1204-1205.
CRETE: A. D. 1645-1669.
The long siege of Candia.
Surrender to the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.
CRETE: A. D. 1715.
Complete Expulsion of the Venetians by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
CRETE: A. D. 1866-1868.
Unsuccessful revolt.
Struggle for independence.
Turkish concession of the Organic Regulation.
See GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
----------CRETE: End----------
CRETE, Party of the.--Crêtois.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).
CRIMEA, OR CRIM TARTARY:
Early history.
See TAURICA;
also BOSPORUS, CITY AND KINGDOM.
CRIMEA: 7th Century.
Conquest and occupation by the Khazars.
See KHAZARS.
CRIMEA: 12th-13th Centuries.
Genoese commercial colonies.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CRIMEA: 13th-14th Centuries.
The khanate to Krim.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1475.
Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1571.
Expedition of the Khan to Moscow.
The city stormed and sacked.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1735-1738.
Russian invasions and fruitless conquests.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1774.
The khanate declared independent of the Porte.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1776-1784.
The process of acquisition by Russia.
Final recognition of Russian sovereignty by the Sultan.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
CRIMEA: A. D. 1853-1855.
War of Russia with Turkey and her allies.
Siege of Sebastopol.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
----------CRIMEA: End----------
CRISIS OF 1837, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
CRISIS OF 1857.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION
(UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.
CRISSA.
Crissæan or Sacred War.
See DELPHI.
CRITTENDEN COMPROMISE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
CROATANS, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
CROATIA: 7th Century.
Sclavonic occupation and settlement.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, BOSNIA, ETC.)
CROATIA: A. D. 1102.
Subjection and annexation to Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
CROATIA: A. D. 1576.
Transferred to the Duke of Styria.
Military colonization.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
----------CROATIA: End----------
CROIA, Turkish massacre at.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
CROMLECHS.
Rude stone monuments found in many parts of the British
Islands, France, and elsewhere, usually formed by three or
more huge, rough, upright stones, with a still larger stone
lying flatly upon them. In France these are called Dolmens.
They were formerly thought to be "Druids altars," to which
notion they owe the name Cromlechs; but it is now very
generally concluded by archæologists that they were
constructed for burial chambers, and that originally, in most
cases, they were covered with mounds of earth, forming the
well known barrows, or grave mounds, or tumuli.
L. Jewett, Grave Mounds.
ALSO IN:
T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon.
Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5.
See, also, AMORITES.
CROMPTON'S MULE, The invention of.
See COTTON MANUFACTURES.
CROMWELL, Oliver.
Campaigns and Protectorate.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 to 1658-1660;
and IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
CROMWELL, Thomas,
The suppression of the Monasteries.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.
CROMWELLIAN SETTLEMENT OF IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
CROMWELL'S IRONSIDES.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).
CROSS, The "True."
Its capture by the Persians and recovery by Heraclius.
See ROME: A. D. 565-628;
And JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
CROSS KEYS, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
CROTON.--KROTON.
See SYBARIS.
CROTONA, Battle of (A. D. 983).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
CROWN, The iron.
See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.
CROWN OF INDIA, The Order of the.
An order, for women, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.
{626}
CROWN POINT: A. D. 1727.
Fort built by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.
CROWN POINT: A. D. 1755.
English Expedition against.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
CROWN POINT: A. D: 1759.
Abandoned to the English by the French.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).
CROWN POINT: A. D. 1775.
Surprise and capture by the Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 MAY.
----------CROWN POINT: End----------
CROWS, OR UPSAROKAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
CRUITHNIGH.-CRUITHNIANS.
The Irish name of the Picts and Scots of ancient Ireland and
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.
CRUSADES:
Causes and introductory events.
"Like all the great movements of mankind, the Crusades must be
traced to the coincidence of many causes which influenced men
of various nations and discordant feelings, at the same period
of time, to pursue one common end with their whole heart.
Religious zeal, the fashion of pilgrimages, the spirit of
social development, the energies that lead to colonisation or
conquest, and commercial relations, only lately extended so
widely as to influence public opinion, all suddenly received a
deep wound. Every class of society felt injured and insulted,
and unity of action was created as if by a divine impulse. The
movement was facilitated by the circumstance that Europe began
to adopt habits of order just at the time when Asia was thrown
into a state of anarchy by the invasions of the Seljouk Turks.
Great numbers of pilgrims had always passed through the
Byzantine empire to visit the holy places in Palestine. We
still possess an itinerary of the road from Bordeaux to
Jerusalem, by the way of Constantinople, written in the fourth
century for the use of pilgrims. Though the disturbed and
impoverished state of Europe, after the fall of the Western
Empire, diminished the number of pilgrims, still, even in
times of the greatest anarchy, many passed annually through
the Eastern Empire to Palestine. The improvement which dawned
on the western nations during the eleventh century, and the
augmented commerce of the Italians, gave additional importance
to the pilgrimage to the East. About the year 1064, during the
reign of Constantine X., an army or caravan of seven thousand
pilgrims passed through Constantinople, led by the Archbishop
of Mentz and four bishops. They made their way through Asia
Minor, which was then under the Byzantine government; but in
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem they were attacked by the
Bedouins, and only saved from destruction by the Saracen emir
of Ramla, who hastened to their assistance. These pilgrims are
reported to have lost 3,000 of their number, without being
able to visit either the Jordan or the Dead Sea. The invasions
of the Seljouks [see TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092]
increased the disorders in Palestine. ... In the year 1076 the
Seljouk Turks took possession of Jerusalem, and immediately
commenced harassing the pilgrims with unheard-of exactions.
The Saracens had in general viewed the pilgrims with favour,
as men engaged in fulfilling a pious duty, or pursuing lawful
gain with praiseworthy industry, and they had levied only a
reasonable toll on the pilgrims, and a moderate duty on their
merchandise; while in consideration of these imposts, they had
established guards to protect them on the roads by which they
approached the holy places. The Turks, on the contrary, acting
like mere nomads, uncertain of retaining possession of the
city, thought only of gratifying their avarice. They plundered
the rich pilgrims, and insulted the poor. The religious
feelings of the Christians were irritated, and their commerce
ruined; a cry for vengeance arose throughout all Europe, and
men's minds were fully prepared for an attempt to conquer
Palestine, when Peter the Hermit began to preach that it was a
sacred duty to deliver the tomb of Christ from the hands of
the Infidels."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek
Empires, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1091.
The Council of Clermont.
Pope Urban II., one of two rival pontiffs then contending for
recognition by the Church, entered with great eagerness into
the movement stirred by Peter the Hermit, and gave it a
powerful impulse through his support, while obtaining for
himself, at the same time, a decisive advantage over his
competitor, by the popularity of the agitation. A great
Council was convened at Piacenza, A. D. 1094, and a second at
Clermont, in the autumn of the same year, to deliberate upon
the action to be taken. The city of Clermont could not contain
the vast multitude of bishops, clergy and laity which
assembled, and an army of many thousands was tented in the
surrounding country. To that excited congregation, at a
meeting in the great square of Clermont, Pope Urban addressed
a speech which is one of the notable utterances of History.
"He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren
in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated
by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the
firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into
the possessions of the faithful; how Christian wives and
daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the
true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden
under foot. 'You,' continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban
II. was one of the most eloquent men of the day), 'you, who
hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been
endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of
soul,--whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and
whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the
infidel,--I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from
the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed
fellow-Christians from the depths into which they have been
trampled.' ... The warmth of the pontiff communicated itself
to the crowd, and the enthusiasm of the people broke out
several times ere he concluded his address. He went on to
portray, not only the spiritual but the temporal advantages
that would accrue to those who took up arms in the service of
the cross. Palestine was, he said, a land flowing with milk
and honey, and precious in the sight of God, as the scene of
the grand events which had saved mankind. That land, he
promised, should be divided among them. Moreover, they should
have full pardon for all their offences, either against God or
man. 'Go, then,' he added, 'in expiation of your sins; and
go assured, that after this world shall have passed away,
imperishable glory shall be yours in the world which is to
come.' The enthusiasm was no longer to be restrained, and loud
shouts interrupted the speaker; the people exclaiming as if
with one voice, 'Dieu le veult! Dieu le veult!' ... The news
of this council spread to the remotest parts of Europe in an
incredibly short space of time. Long before the fleetest
horseman could have brought the intelligence, it was known by
the people in distant provinces; a fact which was considered
as nothing less than supernatural. But the subject was in
everybody's mouth, and the minds of men were prepared for the
result. The enthusiastic merely asserted what they wished, and
the event tallied with their prediction."
C. Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular
Delusions: The Crusades, (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
book 7, chapter 6.
{627}
CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095,
Peter the Hermit and his appeal.
"About twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem by the
Turks, the holy sepulchre was visited by an hermit of the name
of Peter, a native of Amiens, in the province of Picardy in
France. His resentment and sympathy were excited by his own
injuries, and the oppression of the Christian name; he mingled
his tears with those of the patriarch, and earnestly inquired,
if no hopes of relief could be entertained from the Greek
emperors of the East. The patriarch exposed the vices and
weakness of the successors of Constantine. 'I will rouse,'
exclaimed the hermit, 'the martial nations of Europe in your
cause;' and Europe was obedient to the call of the hermit. The
astonished patriarch dismissed him with epistles of credit and
complaint, and no sooner did he land at Bari, than Peter
hastened to kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff. His stature
was small, his appearance contemptible; but his eye was keen
and lively, and he possessed that vehemence of speech which
seldom fails to impart the persuasion of the soul. He was born
of a gentleman's family (for we must now adopt a modern
idiom), and his military service was under the neighbouring
counts of Boulogne, the heroes of the first crusade.
Invigorated by the approbation of the pontiff, this zealous
missionary traversed, with speed and success, the provinces of
Italy and France. His diet was abstemious, his prayers long
and fervent, and the alms which he received with one hand, he
distributed with the other; his head was bare, his feet naked,
his meagre body was wrapt in a coarse garment; he bore and
displayed a weighty crucifix; and the ass on which he rode was
sanctified in the public eye by the service of the man of God.
He preached to innumerable crowds in the churches, the
streets, and the highways. ... When he painted the sufferings
of the natives and pilgrims of Palestine, every heart was
melted to compassion; every breast glowed with indignation,
when he challenged the warriors of the age to defend their
brethren and rescue their Saviour: his ignorance of art and
language was compensated by sighs and tears, and ejaculations;
and Peter supplied the deficiency of reason by loud and
frequent appeals to Christ and his Mother, to the saints and
angels of paradise, with whom he had personally conversed. The
most perfect orator of Athens might have envied the success of
his eloquence; the rustic enthusiast inspired the passions
which he felt, and Christendom expected with impatience the
counsels and decrees of the supreme pontiff."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian
Church, book 6, chapter 4 (volume 4).
CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
The First Great Movement.
The first army of Crusaders to set out on the long march to
Jerusalem was a mob of men, women and children which had not
patience to wait for the organized movement of the military
leaders. They gathered in vast numbers on the banks of the
Moselle and the Meuse, in the spring of 1096, with Peter the
Hermit for their chosen chief. There were nine knights, only,
in the swarm, and but few who had horses to ride, or efficient
arms to bear, or provisions to feed upon. Knowing nothing, and
therefore fearing nothing, they marched away, through France,
Germany, Hungary and beyond, begging food where they could and
subsisting by pillage when it needed. A knight called Walter
the Penniless led the van, and Peter followed, with his second
division, by a somewhat different route. Walter escaped
serious trouble until he reached the country of the savage
Bulgarians. Peter's senseless mob provoked the just wrath of
the Hungarians by storming the small city of Semlin and
slaying 4,000 of its inhabitants. The route of both was lined
with the bones of thousands who perished of hunger, of
exposure, of disease, and by the swords of Hungarians and
Bulgarians. A third and a fourth host of like kind followed in
their wake, led by a monk, Gotschalk, a priest named Volkmar,
and a Count Emicon. These terrorized even more all the
countries through which they passed,--especially where Jews
were to be hunted and killed,--and were destroyed in Hungary
to almost the last man. Peter and Walter reached
Constantinople with 100,000 followers, it is said, even yet,
after all who had fallen by the way. Still refusing to wait
for the better appointed expeditions that were in progress,
and still appalling eastern Christendom by their lawless
barbarities, they passed into Asia Minor, and their miserable
career soon came to an end. Attacking the Turks in the city of
Nicæa,--which had become the capital of the Seljouk sultan of
Roum,--they were beaten, routed, scattered, slaughtered, until
barely 3,000 of the great host escaped. "Of the first
Crusaders," says Gibbon, "300,000 had already perished before
a single city was rescued from the infidels,--before their
graver and more noble brethren had completed the preparations
of their enterprise." Meantime the knights and princes of the
crusade had gathered their armies and were now (in the summer
of 1096) beginning to move eastward, by different routes. Not
one of the greater sovereigns of Europe had enlisted in the
undertaking. The chiefs of one armament were Godfrey de
Bouillon, duke of the Lower Lorraine, or Brabant; his
brothers, Eustace, count of Boulogne, and Baldwin; his cousin,
Baldwin de Bourg, with Baldwin, count of Hainaut, Dudon de
Contz, and other knights celebrated in the "Jerusalem
Delivered" of Tasso. This expedition followed nearly the route
of Peter the Hermit, through Hungary and Bulgaria, giving
hostages for its orderly conduct and winning the good-will of
those countries, even maddened as they were by the foregoing mobs.
{628}
Another larger following from France was led by Hugh, count of
Vermandois, brother of the king of France; Robert, duke of
Normandy, eldest son of William the Conqueror; Stephen, count
of Blois, the Conqueror's son-in-law, and Robert, count of
Flanders. These took the road into Italy, and to Bari, whence,
after spending the winter, waiting for favorable weather, they
were transported by ships to Greece, and pursued their march
to Constantinople. They were followed by a contingent from
southern Italy, under Bohemond, the Norman prince of Tarentum,
son of Robert Guiscard, and his knightly cousin, Tancred. A
fourth army, gathered in southern France by count Raymond of
Toulouse and Bishop Adhemer, the appointed legate and
representative of the pope, chose still another route, through
Lombardy, Dalmatia and Macedonia, into Thrace. On passing
through the territories of the Byzantine emperor (Alexius I.),
all the crusaders experienced his distrust, his duplicity, and
his cautious ill-will--which, under the circumstances were
natural enough. Alexius managed so well that he extorted from
each of the princes an acknowledgment of his rights of
sovereignty over the region of their expected conquests, with
an oath of fealty and homage, and he pushed them across the
Bosphorus so adroitly that no two had the opportunity to unite
their forces under the walls of Constantinople. Their first
undertaking in Asia [May and June, A. D. 1097] was the siege
of Nicæa, and they beleaguered it with an army which Gibbon
believes to have been never exceeded within the compass of a
single camp. Here, again, they were mastered by the cunning
diplomacy of the Greek emperor. When the sultan of Roum
yielded his capital, he was persuaded to surrender it to
Alexius, and the imperial banner protected it from the rage of
the discomfited crusaders. But they revenged themselves on the
Turk at Dorylæum, where he attacked them during their
subsequent march, and where he suffered a defeat which ended
all fighting in Asia Minor. Baldwin, brother of Godfrey, now
improved his opportunities by stealing away from the army,
with a few hundred knights and men, to make conquests on his
own account; with such success that he won the city of Edessa,
with a sweep of country around it, and founded a principality
which subsisted for half a century. The rest fared on, meeting
no opposition from infidel swords, but sickening and dying by
thousands, from heat and from want of water and food, until
they came to Antioch. There, the Turkish emir in command, with
a stout garrison of horse and foot, had prepared for a
stubborn defence, and he held the besiegers at bay for seven
months, while they starved in their ill-supplied camps. The
city was delivered to them by a traitor, at length, but prince
Bohemond, the crafty Norman, secured the benefit of the
treason to himself, and forced his compatriots to concede to
him the sovereignty of Antioch. The sufferings of the
crusaders did not end with the taking of the city. They
brought famine and pestilence upon themselves anew by their
greedy and sensual indulgence, and they were soon under siege
in their own turn, by a great army which the Turks had brought
against them. Death and desertion were in rivalry to thin
their wasted ranks. The survivors were in gloom and despair,
when an opportune miracle occurred to excite them afresh. A
lance, which visions and apparitions certified to be the very
spear that pierced the Redeemer's side, was found buried in a
church at Antioch. Under the stimulus of this amazing
discovery they sallied from the town and dispersed the great
army of the Turks in utter rout. Still the quarrels of the
leaders went on, and ten months more were consumed before the
remains of the Latin army advanced to Jerusalem. It was June,
A. D. 1099, when they saw the Holy City and assailed its
formidable walls. Their number was now reduced to 40,000, but
their devotion and their ardor rose to frenzy, and after a
siege of little more than a month they forced an entrance by
storm. Then they spared neither age nor sex until they had
killed all who denied the Savior of mankind--the Prince of
Peace.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
ALSO IN:
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 1.
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, chapter 6.
C. Mills, History of the Crusades, chapter 2-6.
See also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1099-1144.
The Latin conquests in the east.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
The after-wave of the first movement.
"The tales of victory brought home by the pilgrims excited the
most extravagant expectations in the minds of their auditors,
and nothing was deemed capable of resisting European valour.
The pope called upon all who had taken the cross to perform
their vow, the emperor Henry IV. had the crusade preached, in
order to gain favour with the clergy and laity. Many princes
now resolved to visit in person the new empire founded in the
East. Three great armies assembled: the first in Italy under
the archbishop of Milan, and the two counts of Blandrate; the
second in France under Hugh the Great and Stephen of Blois
[who had deserted their comrades of the first expedition at
Antioch, and] whom shame and remorse urged to perform their
vow, William, duke of Guienne and count of Poitou, who
mortgaged his territory to William Rufus of England to procure
funds, the count of Nevers, the duke of Burgundy, the bishops
of Laon and Soissons; the third in Germany, under the bishop
of Saltzburg, the aged duke Welf of Bavaria, Conrad the master
of the horse to the emperor, and many other knights and
nobles. Ida also, the margravine of Austria, declared her
resolution to share the toils and dangers of the way, and pay
her vows at the tomb of Christ. Vast numbers of women of all
ranks accompanied all these armies,--nay, in that of the duke
of Guienne, who was inferior to none in valour, but united to
it the qualities of a troubadour and glee-man, there appeared
whole troops of young women. The Italian pilgrims were the
first to arrive at Constantinople. They set out early in the
spring, and took their way through Carinthia, Hungary, and
Bulgaria. Though the excesses committed by them were great,
the emperor gave them a kind reception, and the most prudent
and friendly advice respecting their future progress. While
they abode at Constantinople, Conrad and the count of Blois,
and the duke of Burgundy, arrived, and at Whitsuntide they all
passed over, and encamped at Nicomedia."
{629}
With ignorant fatuity, and against all experienced advice, the
new Crusaders resolved to direct their march to Bag-dad and to
overthrow the caliphate. The first body which advanced was cut
to pieces by the Turks on the banks of the Halys, and only a
few thousands, out of more than one hundred thousand, are said
to have made their escape by desperate flight. The second and
third armies were met successively by the victorious Moslems,
before they had advanced so far, and were even more completely
annihilated. The latter body contained, according to the
chroniclers of the time, 150,000 pilgrims, of whom scarcely
one thousand were saved from slavery or death. The men fell
under the swords of the Turks; the women and girls, in great
numbers, finished out their days in the harems of the East.
Out of the wreck of the three vast armaments a slender column
of 10,000 men was got together after some weeks at Antioch and
led to Jerusalem (A. D. 1102). Most of these perished in
subsequent battles, and very few ever saw Europe again. "Such
was the fruitless termination of this second great movement of
the West, in which perhaps a third of a million of pilgrims
left their homes, never to revisit them."
T. Keightley, The Crusaders, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 4.
Crusades: A. D. 1104-1111.
Conquest of maritime cities of Syria and Palestine.
Destruction of the Library of Tripoli.
"The prosperity and the safety of Jerusalem appeared closely
connected with the conquest of the maritime cities of Syria
and Palestine; it being by them alone that it could receive
succour, or establish prompt and easy communications with the
West. The maritime nations of Europe were interested in
seconding, in this instance, the enterprises of the king of
Jerusalem. ... From the period of the first crusades, the
Pisans and the Genoese had constantly sent vessels to the seas
of the East; and their fleets had aided the Christians in
several expeditions against the Mussulmans. A Genoese fleet
had just arrived in the seas of Syria when Baldwin undertook
the siege of Ptolemaïs [Acre]. The Genoese were invited to
assist in this conquest; but as religion was not the principle
to bring them into action, they required, in return for their
assistance and their labour, that they should have a third of
the booty; they likewise stipulated to have a separate church
for themselves, and a national factory and tribunal in the
conquered city. Ptolemaïs was besieged by land and sea, and
after a bloody resistance of twenty days, the inhabitants and
the garrison proposed to surrender, and implored the clemency
of the conquerors. The city opened its gates to the
Christians, and the inhabitants prepared to depart, taking
with them whatever they deemed most valuable; but the Genoese,
at the sight of such rich booty, paid no respect to the
capitulation, and massacred without pity a disarmed and
defenceless people. ... In consequence of this victory,
several places which the Egyptians still held on the coasts of
Syria fell into the hands of the Christians." Among those was
the city of Tripoli. "Raymond, Count de St. Gilles and of
Thoulouse, one of the companions of Godfrey, after having
wandered for a long time about Asia, had died before this
place, of which he had commenced the siege. In memory of his
exploits in the first crusade, the rich territory of Tripoli
was created a county, and became the inheritance of his
family. This territory was celebrated for its productions. ...
A library established in this city, and celebrated through all
the East, contained the monuments of the ancient literature of
the Persians, the Arabians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks. A
hundred copyists were there constantly employed in
transcribing manuscripts. ... After the taking of the city, a
priest attached to Count Bernard de St. Gilles, entered the
room in which were collected a vast number of copies of the
Koran, and as he declared the library of Tripoli contained
only the impious books of Mahomet, it was given up to the
flames. ... Bibles, situated on the smiling and fertile shores
of Phoenicia, Sarepta, where St. Jerome saw still in his day
the tower of Isaiah; and Berytus, famous in the early days of
the church for its school of eloquence, shared the fate of
Tripoli, and became baronies bestowed upon Christian knights.
After these conquests, the Pisans, the Genoese, and several
warriors who had followed Baldwin in his expeditions, returned
into Europe; and the king of Jerusalem, abandoned by these
useful allies, was obliged to employ the forces which remained
in repulsing the invasions of the Saracens."
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, volume 1, book 5.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.
The Second Great Movement.
During the reign of Fulk, the fourth king of Jerusalem, the
Latin power in Palestine and its neighboring territories began
to be seriously shaken by a vigorous Turkish prince named
Zenghi, on whom the sultan Mahmoud had conferred the
government of all the country west of the Tigris. It was the
first time since the coming of the Christians of the West that
the whole strength of Islam in that region had been so nearly
gathered into one strong hand, to be used against them, and
they felt the effect speedily, being themselves weakened by
many quarrels. In 1143 King Fulk died, leaving the crown to a
young son, Baldwin III.,--a boy of thirteen, whose mother
governed in his name. The next year Zenghi captured the
important city of Edessa, and consternation was produced by
his successes. Europe was then appealed to for help against
the advancing Turk, and the call from Jerusalem was taken up
by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the irresistible enthusiast,
whose influence accomplished, in his time, whatever he willed
to have done. Just half a century after Peter the Hermit, St.
Bernard preached a Second Crusade, and with almost equal
effect, notwithstanding the better knowledge now possessed of
all the hardships and perils of the expedition. This time,
royalty took the lead. King Conrad of Germany commanded a
great army from that country, and another host followed King
Louis VII. from France. "Both armies marched down the Danube,
to Constantinople, in the summer of 1147. At the same moment
King Roger [of Naples], with his fleet, attacked, not the
Turks, but the Greek seaport towns of the Morea. Manuel [the
Byzantine emperor] thereupon, convinced that the large armies
were designed for the destruction of his empire in the first
place, with the greatest exertions, got together troops from
all his provinces, and entered into a half-alliance with the
Turks of Asia Minor. The mischief and ill-feeling was
increased by the lawless conduct of the German hordes; the
Greek troops attacked them more than once; whereupon numerous
voices were raised in Louis's headquarters to demand open war
against the faithless Greeks.
{630}
The kings were fully agreed not to permit this, but on
arriving in Constantinople they completely fell out, for,
while Louis made no secret of his warm friendship for Roger,
Conrad promised the Emperor of Constantinople to attack the
Normans as soon as the Crusade should be ended. This was a bad
beginning for a united campaign in the East, and moreover, at
every step eastward, new difficulties arose. The German army,
broken up into several detachments, and led without ability or
prudence, was attacked in Asia Minor by the Emir of Iconium,
and cut to pieces, all but a few hundred men. The French,
though better appointed, also suffered severe losses in that
country, but contrived nevertheless, to reach Antioch with a
very considerable force, and from thence might have carried
the project which the second Baldwin had conceived in vain,
namely, the defence of the northeastern frontier, upon which,
especially since Zenki [Zenghi] had made his appearance, the
life or death of the Christian states depended. But in vain
did Prince Raymond of Antioch try to prevail upon King Louis
to take this view, and to attack without delay the most
formidable of all their adversaries, Noureddin [son of Zenghi,
now dead]. Louis would not hear or do anything till he had
seen Jerusalem and prayed at the Holy Sepulchre. ... In
Jerusalem he [King Louis] was welcomed by Queen Melisende (now
regent, during her son's minority, after Fulco's death), with
praise and gratitude, because he had not taken part in the
distant wars of the Prince of Antioch, but had reserved his
forces for the defence of the holy city of Jerusalem. It was
now resolved to lead the army against Damascus, the only
Turkish town whose Emir had always refused to submit to either
Zenki or Noureddin. Nevertheless Noureddin instantly collected
all his available forces, to succour the besieged town." But
he was spared further exertion by the jealous disagreement of
the Christians, who began to take thought as to what should be
done with Damascus when they took it. The Syrian barons
concluded that they would prefer to leave the city in Turkish
hands, and by treacherous manœuvres they forced king Louis to
raise the siege. "The German king, long since tired of his
powerless position, returned home in the autumn of 1148, and
Louis, after much pressing, stayed a few months longer, and
reached Europe in the following spring. The whole expedition
... had been wrecked, without honour and without result, by
the most wretched personal passions, and the most narrow and
selfish policy."
H. Von Sybel, History and Literature of the Crusades,
chapter 3.
"So ended in utter shame and ignominy the Second Crusade. The
event seemed to give the lie to the glowing promises and
prophecies of St. Bernard. So vast had been the drain of
population to feed this holy war that, in the phrase of an
eye-witness, the cities and castles were empty, and scarcely
one man was left to seven women; and now it was known that the
fathers, the husbands, the sons, or the brothers of these
miserable women would see their earthly homes no more. The cry
of anguish charged Bernard with the crime of sending them
forth on an errand in which they had done absolutely nothing
and had reaped only wretchedness and disgrace. For a time
Bernard himself was struck dumb: but he soon remembered that
he had spoken with the authority of God and his vicegerent,
and that the guilt or failure must lie at the door of the
pilgrims."
G. W. Cox, The Crusades, chapter 5.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1187.
The loss of Jerusalem.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
The Third Great Movement.
When the news reached Europe that Saladin, the redoubtable new
champion of Islam had expelled the Christians and the Cross
from Jerusalem, polluting once more the precincts of the Holy
Sepulchre, the effect produced was something not easily
understood at the present day. If we may believe historians of
the time, the pope (Urban III.) died of grief; "Christians
forgot all the ills of their own country to weep over
Jerusalem. ... Luxury was banished from cities; injuries were
forgotten and alms were given abundantly, Christians slept
upon ashes, clothed themselves in haircloth, and expiated
their disorderly lives by fasting and mortification. The
clergy set the example; the morals of the cloister were
reformed, and cardinals, condemning themselves to poverty,
promised to repair to the Holy Land, supported on charity by
the way. These pious reformations did not last long; but men's
minds were not the less prepared for a new crusade by them,
and all Europe was soon roused by the voice of Gregory VIII.,
who exhorted the faithful to assume the cross and take up
arms."
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 7.
"The emperor Frederic Barbarossa and the kings of France and
England assumed the cross; and the tardy magnitude of their
armaments was anticipated by the maritime states of the
Mediterranean and the ocean. The skilful and provident
Italians first embarked in the ships of Genoa, Pisa, and
Venice. They were speedily followed by the most eager pilgrims
of France, Normandy and the Western Isles. The powerful
succour of Flanders, Frise, and Denmark filled near a hundred
vessels; and the northern warriors were distinguished in the
field by a lofty stature and a ponderous battle-axe. Their
increasing multitudes could no longer be confined within the
walls of Tyre [which the Latins still held], or remain
obedient to the voice of Conrad [Marquis of Montferrat, who
had taken command of the place and repelled the attacks of
Saladin]. They pitied the misfortunes and revered the dignity
of Lusignan [the nominal king of Jerusalem, lately captive in
Saladin's hands], who was released from prison, perhaps to
divide the army of the Franks. He proposed the recovery of
Ptolemais, or Acre, thirty miles to the south of Tyre; and the
place was first invested [July, 1189] by 2,000 horse and
30,000 foot under his nominal command. I shall not expatiate
on the story of this memorable siege, which lasted near two
years, and consumed, in a narrow space, the forces of Europe
and Asia. ... At the sound of the holy trumpet the Moslems of
Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and the Oriental provinces assembled
under the servant of the prophet: his camp was pitched and
removed within a few miles of Acre; and he laboured, night and
day, for the relief of his brethren and the annoyance of the
Franks. ... In the spring of the second year, the royal fleets
of France and England cast anchor in the bay of Acre, and the
siege was more vigorously prosecuted by the youthful emulation
of the two kings, Philip Augustus and Richard Plantagenet.
{631}
After every resource had been tried, and every hope was
exhausted, the defenders of Acre submitted to their fate. ...
By the conquest of Acre the Latin powers acquired a strong
town and a convenient harbour; but the advantage was most
dearly purchased. The minister and historian of Saladin
computes, from the report of the enemy, that their numbers, at
different periods, amounted to 500,000 or 600,000; that more
than 100, 000 Christians were slain; that a far greater number
was lost by disease or shipwreck." On the reduction of Acre,
king Philip Augustus returned to France, leaving only 500
knights and 10,000 men behind him. Meantime, the old emperor,
Frederick Barbarossa, coming by the landward route, through
the country of the Greeks and Asia Minor, with a well-trained
army of 20,000 knights and 50,000 men on foot, had perished by
the way, drowned in a little Cilician torrent, and only 5,000
of his troops had reached the camp at Acre. Old as he was, (he
was seventy when he took the cross) Barbarossa might have
changed the event of the Crusade if he had reached the scene
of conflict; for he had brains with his valor and character
with his ferocity, which Richard Cœur de Lion had not. The
latter remained another year in the Holy Land; recovered
Cæsarea and Jaffa; threatened Saladin in Jerusalem seriously,
but to no avail; and stirred up more and fiercer quarrels
among the Christians than had been customary, even on the soil
which was sacred to them. In the end, a treaty was arranged
which displeased the more devout on both sides. "It was
stipulated that Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre should be
open, without tribute or vexation, to the pilgrimage of the
Latin Christians; that, after the demolition of Ascalon, they
should inclusively possess the sea-coast from Jaffa to Tyre;
that the count of Tripoli and the prince of Antioch should be
comprised in the truce; and that, during three years and three
months, all hostilities should cease. ... Richard embarked for
Europe, to seek a long captivity and a premature grave; and
the space of a few months concluded the life and glories of
Saladin."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"A halo of false glory surrounds the Third Crusade from the
associations which connect it with the lion-hearted king of
England. The exploits of Richard I. have stirred to enthusiasm
the dullest of chroniclers, have furnished themes for jubilant
eulogies, and have shed over his life that glamour which
cheats even sober-minded men when they read the story of his
prototype Achilleus in the tale of Troy. ... When we turn from
the picture to the reality, we shall see in this Third Crusade
an enterprise in which the fiery zeal which does something
towards redeeming the savage brutalities of Godfrey and the
first crusaders is displaced by base and sordid greed, by
intrigues utterly of the earthy, by wanton crimes from which
we might well suppose that the sun would hide away its face;
and in the leaders of this enterprise we shall see men in whom
morally there is scarcely a single quality to relieve the
monotonous blackness of their infamy; in whom, strategically,
a very little generalship comes to the aid of a blind brute
force."
G. W. Cox, The Crusades, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
Mrs. W. Busk, Mediaeval Popes, Emperors, Kings
and Crusaders, book 2, chapter 12, and book 3, chapter 1-2.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.
The Fourth Expedition.
A crusading expedition of German barons and their followers,
which went to the Holy Land, by way of Italy, in 1196, is
generally counted as the Fourth Crusade, though some writers
look upon it as a movement supplementary to the Third Crusade.
The Germans, who numbered some 40,000, do not seem to have
been welcomed by the Christians of Palestine. The latter
preferred to maintain the state of peace then prevailing; but
the new crusaders forced hostilities at once. Saladin was
dead; his brother Saphadin accepted the challenge to war with
prompt vigor and struck the first hard blow, taking Jaffa,
with great slaughter, and demolishing its fortifications. But
Saphadin was presently defeated in a battle fought between
Tyre and Sidon, and Jaffa was recovered, together with other
towns and most of the coast. But, a little later, the Germans
suffered, in their turn, a most demoralizing reverse at the
castle of Thoron, which they besieged, and were further
disturbed, in the midst of their depression, by news of the
death of their emperor, Henry VI. A great part of them,
thereupon, returned home. Those who remained, or many of them,
occupied Jaffa, where they were attacked, a few months later,
and cut to pieces.
G. W. Cox, The Crusades, chapter 8.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
The Fifth Movement.-
Treachery of the Venetians.
Conquest of Constantinople.
"Every traveller returning from Syria brought a prayer for
immediate help from the survivors of the Third Crusade. It was
necessary to act at once if any portion even of the wreck of
the kingdom of Jerusalem were to be saved. Innocent the Third,
and some, at least, of the statesmen of the West were fully
alive to the progress which Islam had made since the departure
of the Western kings. In 1197, however, after five years of
weary waiting, the time seemed opportune for striking a new
blow for Christendom. Saladin, the great Sultan, had died in
1193, and his two sons were already quarreling about the
partition of his empire. The contending divisions of the Arab
Moslems were at this moment each bidding for the support of
the Christians of Syria. The other great race of Mahometans
which had threatened Europe, the Seljukian Turks, had made a
halt in their progress through Asia Minor. ... Other special
circumstances which rendered the moment favourable for a new
crusade, combined with the profound conviction of the
statesmen of the West of the danger to Christendom from the
progress of Islam, urged Western Europe to take part in the
new enterprise. The reigning Pope, Innocent III., was the
great moving spirit of the Fourth Crusade." The popular
preacher of the Crusade was found in an ignorant priest named
Fulk, of Neuilly, whose success in kindling public enthusiasm
was almost equal to that of Peter the Hermit. Vast numbers
took the cross, with Theobald, count of Champagne, Louis,
count of Blois and Chartres, Simon de Montfort, Walter of
Brienne, Baldwin, count of Flanders, Hugh of St. Pol, Geoffrey
de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne and future historian of
the Crusade, and many other prominent knights and princes
among the leaders. The young count of Champagne was the chosen
chief; but he sickened and died and his place was taken by
Boniface, marquis of Montferrat.
{632}
It was the decision of the leaders that the expedition should
be directed in the first instance against the Moslem power in
Egypt, and that it should be conveyed to the attack of Egypt
by sea. Venice, alone, seemed to be able to furnish ships,
sailors and supplies for so great a movement, and a contract
with Venice for the service was concluded in the spring of
120l. But Venice was mercenary, unscrupulous and treacherous,
caring for nothing but commercial gains. Before the crusaders
could gather at her port for embarkation, she had betrayed
them to the Moslems. By a secret treaty with the sultan of
Egypt, the fact of which is coming more and more conclusively
to light, she had undertaken to frustrate the Crusade, and to
receive important commercial privileges at Alexandria as
compensation for her treachery. When, therefore, in the early
summer of 1202, the army of the Crusade was collected at
Venice to take ship, it encountered difficulties,
discouragements and ill-treatments which thickened daily. The
number assembled was not equal to expectation. Some had gone
by sea from Flanders; some by other routes. But Venice had
provided transport for the whole, and inflexibly demanded pay
for the whole. The money in hand was not equal to this claim.
The summer was lost in disputes and attempted compromises.
Many of the crusaders withdrew in disgust and went home. At
length, in defiance of the censures of the pope and of the
bitter opposition of many leaders and followers of the
expedition, there was a bargain struck, by the terms of which
the crusaders were to assist the Venetians in taking and
plundering the Christian city of Zara, a dreaded commercial
rival on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, belonging to the
king of Hungary, himself one of the promoters of the very
crusade which was now to be turned against him. The infamous
compact was carried out. Zara was taken, and in the end it was
totally destroyed by the Venetians. In the meantime, the
doomed city was occupied by the crusading army through the
winter, while a still more perfidious plot was being formed.
Old Dandolo, the blind doge of Venice, was the master spirit
of it. He was helped by the influence of Philip, one of the
two rivals then fighting for the imperial crown in Germany and
Italy. Philip had married a daughter of Isaac II. (Angelos),
made emperor at Constantinople on the fall of the dynasty of
Comnenus, and that feeble prince had lately been dethroned by
his brother. The son and heir of Isaac, named Alexius, had
escaped from Constantinople and had made his way to Philip
imploring help. Either Philip conceived the idea, or it was
suggested to him, that the armament of the Crusade might be
employed to place the young Alexius on the throne of his
father. To the Venetians the scheme was more than acceptable.
It would frustrate the Crusade, which they had pledged
themselves to the sultan of Egypt to accomplish; it would
satisfy their ill-will towards the Byzantines, and, more
important than all else, it would give them an opportunity to
secure immeasurable advantages over their rivals in the great
trade which Constantinople held at command. The marquis of
Montferrat, commander of the Crusade, had some grievances of
his own and some ambitions of his own, which made him
favorable to the new project, and he was easily won to it. The
three influences thus combined--those of Philip, of Dandolo,
and of Montferrat--overcame all opposition. Some who opposed
were bribed, some were intimidated, some were deluded by
promises, some deserted the ranks. Pope Innocent remonstrated,
appealed and threatened in vain. The pilgrim host, "changed
from a crusading army into a filibustering expedition," set
sail from Zara in the spring of the year 1203, and was landed,
the following June, not on the shores of Egypt or Syria, but
under the walls of Constantinople. Its conquest, pillage and
brutally destructive treatment of the great city are described
in another place.
E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 8-13.
ALSO IN:
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and
Greek Empires, 716-1453, book 3, chapter 3.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See, also,
BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204
CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1283.
Against the heathen Sclavonians on the Baltic.
See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES;
and PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1209-1242.
Against the Albigenses.
See ALBIGENSES.
CRUSADES: A. D, 1212.
The Children's Crusade.
"The religious wars fostered and promoted vice; and the
failure of army after army was looked on as a clear
manifestation of God's wrath against the sins of the camp.
This feeling was roused to its highest pitch when, in the year
1212, certain priests--Nicolas was the name of one of these
mischievous madmen--went about France and Germany calling on
the children to perform what the fathers, through their
wickedness, had been unable to effect, promising that the sea
should be dry to enable them to march across; that the
Saracens would be miraculously stricken with a panic at the
sight of them; that God would, through the hands of children
only, whose lives were yet pure, work the recovery of the
Cross and the Sepulchre. Thousands--it is said fifty
thousand--children of both sexes responded to the call. They
listened to the impassioned preaching of the monks, believed
their lying miracles, their visions, their portents, their
references to the Scriptures, and, in spite of all that their
parents could do, rushed to take the Cross, boys and girls
together, and streamed along the roads which led to Marseilles
and Genoa, singing hymns, waving branches, replying to those
who asked whither they were going, 'We go to Jerusalem to
deliver the Holy Sepulchre,' and shouting their rallying cry,
'Lord Jesus, give us back thy Holy Cross.' They admitted
whoever came, provided he took the Cross; the infection
spread, and the children could not be restrained from joining
them in the towns and villages along their route. Their
miserable parents put them in prison; they escaped; they
forbade them to go; the children went in spite of prohibition.
They had no money, no provisions, no leaders; but the charity
of the towns they passed through supported them. At their rear
streamed the usual tail of camp followers. ... There were two
main bodies. One of these directed its way through Germany,
across the Alps, to Genoa. On the road they were robbed of all
the gifts which had been presented them; they were exposed to
heat and want, and very many either died on the march or
wandered away from the road and so became lost to sight; when
they reached Italy they dispersed about the country, seeking
food, were stripped by the villagers, and in some cases were
reduced to slavery.
{633}
Only seven thousand out of their number arrived at Genoa. Here
they stayed for some days. They looked down upon the
Mediterranean, hoping that its bright waves would divide to
let them pass. But they did not; there was no miracle wrought
in their favour; a few of noble birth were received among the
Genoese families, and have given rise to distinguished houses
of Genoa; among them is the house of Vivaldi. The rest,
disappointed and disheartened, made their way back again, and
got home at length, the girls with the loss of their virtue,
the boys with the loss of their belief, all barefooted and in
rags, laughed at by the towns they went through, and wondering
why they had ever gone at all. This was the end of the German
army. That of the French was not so fortunate, for none of
them ever got back again at all. When they arrived at
Marseilles, thinned probably by the same causes as those which
had dispersed the Germans, they found, like their brethren,
that the sea did not open a path for them, as had been
promised. Perhaps some were disheartened and went home again.
But fortune appeared to favour them. There were two worthy
merchants at Marseilles, named Hugh Ferrens, and William
Porcus, Iron Hugh and Pig William, who traded with the East,
and had in port seven ships, in which they proposed to convey
the children to Palestine. With a noble generosity they
offered to take them for nothing, all for love of religion,
and out of the pure kindness of their hearts. Of course this
offer was accepted with joy, and the seven vessels laden with
the happy little Crusaders, singing their hymns and flying
their banners, sailed out from Marseilles, bound for the East,
accompanied by William the Good and Hugh the Pious. It was not
known to the children, of course, that the chief trade of
these merchants was the lucrative business of kidnapping
Christian children for the Alexandrian market. It was so,
however, and these respectable tradesmen had never before made
so splendid a coup. Unfortunately, off the Island of St.
Peter, they encountered bad weather, and two ships went down
with all on board. What must have been the feelings of the
philanthropists, Pig William and Iron Hugh, at this
misfortune? They got, however, five ships safely to
Alexandria, and sold all their cargo, the Sultan of Cairo
buying forty of the boys, whom he brought up carefully and
apart, intending them, doubtless, for his best soldiers. A
dozen refusing to change their faith were martyred. None of
the rest ever came back. Nobody in Europe seems to have taken
much notice of this extraordinary episode."
W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, chapter 18.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Michaud, History of the Crusades,
appendix number 28.
G. Z. Gray, The Children's Crusade.
CRUSADE: A. D. 1212.
Against the Moors in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
CRUSADE: A. D. 1216-1229.
The Sixth Movement.
Frederic II. in Jerusalem.
For six years after the betrayal of the vows of the crusaders
of 1202-1204--who sacked Constantinople instead of rescuing
Jerusalem--the Christians of Palestine were protected by a
truce with Saphadin, the brother of Saladin, who had succeeded
the latter in power. Hostilities were then rashly provoked by
the always foolish Latins, and they soon found themselves
reduced to sore straits, calling upon Europe for fresh help.
Pope Innocent III. did not scruple to second their appeal. A
new crusade was preached with great earnestness, and a general
Council of the Church--the Fourth of Lateran--was convened for
the stimulation of it. "The Fifth Crusade [or the Sixth, as
more commonly numbered], the result of this resolution, was
divided in the sequel into three maritime expeditions: the
first [A. D. 1216] consisting principally of Hungarians under
their king, Andrew; the second [A. D. 1218] composed of
Germans, Italians, French and English nobles and their
followers; and the third [A. D. 1228] led by the Emperor
Frederic II. in person. ... Though the King of Hungary was
attended by the flower of a nation which, before its
conversion to Christianity, had been the scourge and terror of
Western Europe, the arms of that monarch, even aided by the
junction of numerous German crusaders under the dukes of
Austria and Bavaria, performed nothing worthy of notice: and
after a single campaign in Palestine, in which the Mussulman
territories were ineffectually ravaged, the fickle Andrew
deserted the cause and returned with his forces to Europe. His
defection did not prevent the duke of Austria, with the German
crusaders, from remaining, in concert with the King of
Jerusalem, his barons, and the knights of the three religious
orders, for the defence of Palestine; and, in the following
year, the constancy of these faithful champions of the Cross
was rewarded by the arrival of numerous reinforcements from
Germany. ... It was resolved to change the scene of warfare
from the narrow limits of the Syrian shore to the coast of
Egypt, ... and the situation of Damietta, at the mouth of the
Nile, pointed out that city as the first object of attack."
After a siege of seventeen months, during which both the
besieged and the besiegers suffered horribly, from famine and
from pestilence, Damietta was taken (A. D. 1219), Nine-tenths
of its population of 80,000 had perished. "Both during the
siege and after the capture of Damietta, the invasion of Egypt
had filled the infidels with consternation; and the alarm
which was betrayed in their counsels proved that the
crusaders, in choosing that country for the theatre of
operations, had assailed the Mussulman power in its most vital
and vulnerable point. Of the two sons of Saphadin, Coradinus
and Camel, who were now uneasily seated on the thrones of
Damascus and Cairo, the former, in despair of preserving
Jerusalem, had already demolished its fortifications; and the
brothers agreed in repeatedly offering the cession of the holy
city and of all Palestine to the Christians, upon the single
condition of their evacuating Egypt. Every object which had
been ineffectually proposed in repeated Crusades, since the
fatal battle of Tiberias, might now have been gloriously
obtained by the acceptance of these terms, and the King of
Jerusalem, the French and English leaders, and the Teutonic
knights, all eagerly desired to embrace the offer of the
Sultans. But the obstinate ambition and cupidity of the
surviving papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius, of the Italian
chieftains, and of the knights of the other two religious
orders, by holding out the rich prospect of the conquest and
plunder of Egypt, overruled every wise and temperate argument
in the Christian councils, and produced a rejection of all
compromise with the infidels.
{634}
After a winter of luxurious inaction, the legate led the
crusading host from Damietta toward Cairo (A. D. 1220)." The
expedition was as disastrous in its result as it was imbecile
in its leadership. The whole army, caught by the rising of the
Nile, was placed in so helpless a situation that it was glad
to purchase escape by the surrender of Damietta and the
evacuation of Egypt. The retreat of the greater part of these
crusaders did not end until they had reached home. Pope
Honorius III. (who had succeeded Innocent III. in 1216) strove
to shift responsibility for the failure from his wretched
legate to the Emperor Frederic II., who had thus far evaded
the fulfilment of his crusading promises and vows, being
occupied in struggles with the papacy. At length, in 1228,
Frederic embarked for Palestine with a small force, pursued by
the maledictions of the pope, who denounced him for daring to
assume the Cross while under the ban of the church, as much as
he had denounced him before for neglecting it. But the
free-thinking Hohenstauffen cared little, apparently, and went
his way, shunned scrupulously by all pious souls, including
the knights of Palestine, except those of the Teutonic order.
With the help of the latter he occupied and refortified Jaffa
and succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Sultan which
restored Jerusalem to the Christians, reserving certain rights
to the Mahometans; giving up likewise Bethlehem, Nazareth
and some other places to the Christians, and securing peace
for ten years. Frederic had married, a few years before, for
his second empress, Iolante, daughter and heiress of the
titular king of Jerusalem, John de Brienne. With the hand of
this princess, he received from her father a solemn transfer
of all his rights to that shadowy throne. He now claimed those
rights, and, entering Jerusalem, with the Teutonic knights (A.
D. 1229), he crowned himself its king. The patriarch, the
Templars and the Hospitallers refused to take part in the
ceremony; the pope denounced Frederic's advantageous treaty as
soon as he had news of it, and all that it gained for the
Christians of Palestine was thrown away by them as speedily as
possible.
Major Procter, History of the Crusades,
chapter 5, section 2.
"No Crusader, since Godfrey de Bouillon, had effected so much
as Frederick the Second. What would he not have obtained, had
the Pope, the Patriarch and the Orders given him their hearty
cooperation?"
T. L. Kington, History of Frederick II., chapter 8.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1238-1280.
Against the Bogomiles.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.)
CRUSADES: A. D. 1242.
The Invasion of Palestine by the Carismians.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
The Seventh Movement.
Expedition of Saint Louis to Egypt.
The Seventh Crusade was undertaken, with little aid from other
countries, by the devout and wonderfully Christian-like young
king of France, Louis IX., afterwards canonized, and known in
history as St. Louis. "He carried it out with a picked army,
furnished by the feudal chivalry and by the religious and
military orders dedicated to the service of the Holy Land. The
Isle of Cyprus was the trysting-place appointed for all the
forces of the expedition. Louis arrived there on the 12th of
September, 1248, and reckoned upon remaining there only a few
days; for it was Egypt that he was in a hurry to reach. The
Christian world was at that time of opinion that, to deliver
the Holy Land, it was necessary first of all to strike a blow
at Islamism in Egypt, wherein its chief strength resided. But
scarcely had the crusaders formed a junction in Cyprus, when
the vices of the expedition and the weaknesses of its chief
began to be manifest. Louis, unshakable in his religious zeal,
was wanting in clear ideas and fixed resolves as to the
carrying out of his design. ... He did not succeed in winning
a majority in the council of chiefs over to his opinion as to
the necessity for a speedy departure for Egypt; it was decided
to pass the winter in Cyprus. ... At last a start was made
from Cyprus in May, 1249, and, in spite of violent gales of
wind which dispersed a large number of vessels, they arrived
on the 4th of June before Damietta. ... Having become masters
of Damietta, St. Louis and the crusaders committed the same
fault there as in the Isle of Cyprus: they halted there for an
indefinite time. They were expecting fresh crusaders; and they
spent the time of expectation in quarreling over the partition
of the booty taken in the city. They made away with it, they
wasted it blindly. ... Louis saw and deplored these
irregularities, without being in a condition to stop them. At
length, on the 20th of November, 1249, after more than five
months' inactivity at Damietta, the crusaders put themselves
once more in motion, with the determination of marching upon
Babylon, that outskirt of Cairo, now called Old Cairo, which
the greater part of them, in their ignorance, mistook for the
real Babylon, and where they flattered themselves they would
find immense riches, and avenge the olden sufferings of the
Hebrew captives. The Mussulmans had found time to recover from
their first fright, and to organize, at all points, a vigorous
resistance. On the 8th of February, 1250, a battle took place
twenty leagues from Damietta, at Mansourah ('the city of
victory'), on the right bank of the Nile. ... The battle-field
was left that day to the crusaders; but they were not allowed
to occupy it as conquerors, for, three days afterwards, on the
11th of February, 1250, the camp of St. Louis was assailed by
clouds of Saracens, horse and foot, Mamelukes and Bedouins.
All surprise had vanished, the Mussulmans measured at a glance
the numbers of the Christians, and attacked them in full
assurance of success, whatever heroism they might display; and
the crusaders themselves indulged in no more self·illusion,
and thought only of defending themselves. Lack of provisions
and sickness soon rendered defence almost as impossible as
attack; every day saw the Christian camp more and more
encumbered with the famine-stricken, the dying, and the dead;
and the necessity for retreating became evident." An attempt
to negotiate with the enemy failed, because they insisted on
the surrender of the king as hostage,--which none would
concede. "On the 5th of April, 1250, the crusaders decided
upon retreating. This was the most deplorable scene of a
deplorable drama; and at the same time it was, for the king,
an occasion for displaying, in their most sublime and
attractive traits, all the virtues of the Christian. Whilst
sickness and famine were devastating the camp, Louis made
himself visitor, physician and comforter; and his presence and
his words exercised upon the worst cases a searching influence. ...
{635}
When the 5th of April, the day fixed for the retreat, had
come, Louis himself was ill and much enfeebled. He was urged
to go aboard one of the vessels which were to descend the
Nile, carrying the wounded and the most suffering; but he
refused absolutely, saying, 'I don't separate from my people
in the hour of danger.' He remained on land, and when he had
to move forward he fainted away. When he came to himself, he
was amongst the last to leave the camp. ... At four leagues
distance from the camp it had just left, the rear-guard of the
crusaders, harassed by clouds of Saracens, was obliged to
halt. Louis could no longer keep on his horse. 'He was put up
at a house,' says Joinville, 'and laid, almost dead, upon the
lap of a tradeswoman from Paris; and it was believed that he
would not last till evening.'" The king, in this condition,
with the whole wreck of his army,--only 10,000 in number
remaining to him,--were taken prisoners. Their release from
captivity was purchased a month later by the surrender of
Damietta and a ransom-payment of 500,000 livres. They made
their way to St. Jean d' Acre, in Palestine, whence many of
them returned home. But King Louis, with some of his knights
and men-at-arms--how many is not known--stayed yet in the Holy
Land for four years, striving and hoping against hope to
accomplish something for the deliverance of Jerusalem, and
expending "in small works of piety, sympathy, protection, and
care for the future of the Christian population in Asia, his
time, his strength, his pecuniary resources, and the ardor of
a soul which could not remain idly abandoned to sorrowing over
great desires unsatisfied." The good and pious but ill-guided
king returned to France in the summer of 1254, and was
received with great joy.
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 17;
www.gutenberg.org/files/11952
ALSO IN:
Sire De Joinville, Memoirs of Saint Louis, part 2.
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, books 13-14.
Crusades: A. D. 1252.
The movement of "the Pastors."
On the arrival in France of the news of the disastrous failure
of Saint Louis's expedition to Egypt, there occurred an
outbreak of fanaticism as insensate as that of the children's
crusade of forty years before. It was said to have originated
with a Hungarian named Jacob, who began to proclaim that
Christ rejected the great ones of the earth from His service,
and that the deliverance of the Holy City must be accomplished
by the poor and humble. "Shepherds left their flocks, labourers
laid down the plough, to follow his footsteps. ... The name of
Pastors was given to these village crusaders. ... At length,
assembled to the number of more than 100,000, these
redoubtable pilgrims left Paris and divided themselves into
several troops, to repair to the coast, whence they were to
embark for the East. The city of Orleans, which happened to be
in their passage, became the theatre of frightful disorders.
The progress of their enormities at length created serious
alarm in the government and the magistracy; orders were sent
to the provinces to pursue and disperse these turbulent and
seditious bands. The most numerous assemblage of the Pastors
was fixed to take place at Bourges, where the 'master of
Hungary' [Jacob] was to perform miracles and communicate the
will of Heaven. Their arrival in that city was the signal for
murder, fire and pillage. The irritated people took up arms
and marched against these disturbers of the public peace; they
overtook them between Mortemer and Villeneuve-sur-le-Cher,
where, in spite of their numbers, they were routed, and
received the punishment due to their brigandages. Jacob had
his head cut off by the blow of an axe; many of his companions
and disciples met with death on the field of battle, or were
consigned to punishment; the remainder took to flight."
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 14.
Crusades: A. D. 1256-1259.
Against Eccelino di Romano.
See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
Crusades: A. D. 1270-1271.
The last undertakings.
Saint Louis at Tunis.
Prince Edward in Palestine.
"For seven years after his return to France, from 1254 to
1261, Louis seemed to think no more about them [the crusades],
and there is nothing to show that he spoke of them even to his
most intimate confidants; but, in spite of his apparent
calmness, he was living, so far as they were concerned, in a
continual ferment of imagination and internal fever, even
flattering himself that some favorable circumstance would call
him back to his interrupted work. ... In 1261, Louis held, at
Paris, a Parliament, at which, without any talk of a new
crusade, measures were taken which revealed an idea of it. ...
In 1263 the crusade was openly preached. ... All objections,
all warnings, all anxieties came to nothing in the face of
Louis's fixed idea and pious passion. He started from Paris on
the 16th of March, 1270, a sick man almost already, but with
soul content, and probably the only one without misgiving in
the midst of all his comrades. It was once more at
Aigues-Mortes that he went to embark. All was as yet dark and
undecided as to the plan of the expedition. ... Steps were
taken at hap-hazard with full trust in Providence and utter
forgetfulness that Providence does not absolve men from
foresight. ... It was only in Sardinia, after four days' halt
at Cagliari, that Louis announced to the chiefs of the
crusade, assembled aboard his ship, the 'Mountjoy,' that he
was making for Tunis, and that their Christian work would
commence there. The king of Tunis (as he was then called),
Mohammed Mostanser, had for some time been talking of his
desire to become a Christian, if he could be efficiently
protected against the seditions of his subjects. Louis
welcomed with transport the prospect of Mussulman conversions.
... But on the 17th of July, when the fleet arrived before
Tunis, the admiral, Florent de Varennes, probably without the
king's orders, and with that want of reflection which was
conspicuous at each step of the enterprise, immediately took
possession of the harbor and of some Tunisian vessels as
prize, and sent word to the king 'that he had only to support
him and that the disembarkation of the troops might be
effected with perfect safety.' Thus war was commenced at the
very first moment against the Mussulman prince whom there had
been promise of seeing before long a Christian. At the end of
a fortnight, after some fight between the Tunisians and the
crusaders, so much political and military blindness produced
its natural consequences. The re-enforcements promised to
Louis by his brother Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, had not
arrived; provisions were falling short; and the heats of an
African summer were working havoc amongst the army with such
rapidity that before long there was no time to bury the dead;
but they were cast pell-mell into the ditch which surrounded
the camp, and the air was tainted thereby.
{636}
On the 3d of August Louis was attacked by the epidemic fever."
On the 25th of August he died. His son and successor, Philip
III., held his ground before Tunis until November, when he
gladly accepted a payment of money from the Tunisian prince
for withdrawing his army. Disaster followed him. A storm
destroyed part of his fleet, with 4,000 or 5,000 men, and sunk
all the treasure he had received from the Moslems. On the
journey home through Italy his wife met with an accident which
ended her life and that of her prematurely born child. The
young king arrived at Paris, May, 1271, bringing the remains
of five of his family for burial at St. Denis: his wife, his
son, his father, his brother, and his brother-in-law,--all
victims of the fatal crusade. While France was thus burying
the last of her crusaders, Prince Edward (afterwards King
Edward I.) of England, landed in Syria at the head of a few
hundred knights and men at arms. Joined by the Templars and
Hospitallers, he had an army of 6,000 or 7,000 men, with which
he took Nazareth and made there a bloody sacrifice to the
memory of the gentle Nazarene. He did nothing more. Being
wounded by an assassin, he arranged a truce with the Sultan of
Egypt and returned home. His expedition was the last from
Europe which strove with the Moslems for the Holy Land. The
Christians of Palestine, who still held Acre and Tyre, Sidon
and a few other coast cities, were soon afterwards
overwhelmed, and the dominion of the Crescent in Syria was
undisputed any more by force of arms, though many voices cried
vainly against it. The spirit of the Crusades had expired.
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 17.
www.gutenberg.org/files/11952
ALSO IN:
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 15.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1291.
The end of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem.
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.
The last campaign of the Templars.
"After the fall of Acre [A. D. 1291] the headquarters of the
Templars were established at Limisso in the island of Cyprus,
and urgent letters were sent to Europe for succour." In 1295,
James de Molay, the head of the English province, became Grand
Master, and soon after his arrival in Palestine he entered
into an alliance with Ghazan Khan, the Mongol ruler of Persia,
who had married a Christian princess of Armenia and was not
unfriendly to the Christians, as against the Mamelukes of
Egypt, with whom he was at war. The Mongol Khan invited the
Templars to join him in an expedition against the Sultan of
Egypt, and they did so in the spring of 1299, at Antioch. "An
army of 30,000 men was placed by the Mogul emperor under the
command of the Grand Master, and the combined forces moved up
the valley of the Orontes towards Damascus. In a great battle
fought at Hems, the troops of the sultans of Damascus and
Egypt were entirely defeated and pursued with great slaughter
until nightfall. Aleppo, Hems, Damascus, and all the principal
cities, surrendered to the victorious arms of the Moguls, and
the Templars once again entered Jerusalem in triumph, visited
the Holy Sepulchre and celebrated Easter on Mount Zion." The
khan sent ambassadors to Europe, offering the possession of
Palestine to the Christian powers if they would give him their
alliance and support, but none responded to the call. Ghazan
Khan fell ill and withdrew from Syria; the Templars retreated
to Cyprus once more and their military career, as the
champions of the Cross, was at an end.
C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Howarth, History of the Mongols, part 3, chapter 8.
CRUSADES:
Effects and consequences of the Crusades, in Europe.
"The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and
the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each
pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the
relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded
and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of
the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by
new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition,
the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of
indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from
the baleful fountain of the holy war. The active spirit of the
Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion; and
if the ninth and tenth centuries were the times of darkness,
the thirteenth and fourteenth were the age of absurdity and
fable. ... Some philosophers have applauded the propitious
influence of these holy wars, which appear to me to have
checked rather than forwarded the maturity of Europe."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
"The crusades may be considered as material pilgrimages on an
enormous scale, and their influence upon general morality
seems to have been altogether pernicious. Those who served
under the cross would not indeed have lived very virtuously at
home; but the confidence in their own merits which the
principle of such expeditions inspired must have aggravated
the ferocity and dissoluteness of their ancient habits.
Several historians attest the depravation of morals which
existed, both among the crusaders and in the states formed out
of their conquests."
H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9. part 1.
"It was not possible for the crusaders to travel through so
many countries, and to behold their various customs and
institutions, without acquiring information and improvement.
Their views enlarged; their prejudices wore off; new ideas
crowded into their minds; and they must have been sensible, on
many occasions, of the rusticity of their own manners when
compared with those of a more polished people. ...
Accordingly, we discover, soon after the commencement of the
crusades, greater splendour in the courts of princes, greater
pomp in public ceremonies, a more refined taste in pleasure
and amusements, together with a more romantic spirit of
enterprise spreading gradually over Europe; and to these wild
expeditions, the effect of superstition and folly, we owe the
first gleams of light which tended to dispel barbarism and
ignorance. But the beneficial consequences of the crusades
took place slowly; their influence upon the state of property,
and, consequently, of power, in the different kingdoms of
Europe, was more immediate as well as discernible."
W. Robertson, View of the Progress of Society
in Europe, section 1.
{637}
"The crusades are not, in my mind, either the popular
delusions that our cheap literature has determined them to be,
nor papal conspiracies against kings and peoples, as they
appear to the Protestant controversialist; nor the savage
outbreaks of expiring barbarism, thirsting for blood and
plunder, nor volcanic explosions of religious intolerance. I
believe them to have been, in their deep sources, and in the
minds of their best champions, and in the main tendency of
their results, capable of ample justification. They were the
first great effort of mediæval life to go beyond the pursuit
of selfish and isolated ambitions; they were the trial-feat of
the young world, essaying to use, to the glory of God and the
benefit of man, the arms of its new knighthood. ... That in
the end they were a benefit to the world no one who reads can
doubt; and that in their course they brought out a love for
all that is heroic in human nature, the love of freedom, the
honour of prowess, sympathy with sorrow, perseverance to the
last and patient endurance without hope, the chronicles of the
age abundantly prove; proving, moreover, that it was by the
experience of those times that the forms of those virtues were
realized and presented to posterity."
William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval
and Modern History, lecture 8.
"Though begun under the name and influence of religious
belief, the crusades deprived religious ideas, I shall not say
of their legitimate share of influence, but of their exclusive
and despotic possession of the human mind. This result, though
undoubtedly unforeseen, arose from various causes. The first
was evidently the novelty, extent, and variety of the scene
which displayed itself to the crusaders; what generally
happens to travellers happened to them. It is mere
common-place to say, that travelling gives freedom to the
mind; that the habit of observing different nations, different
manners and different opinions, enlarges the ideas, and
disengages the judgment from old prejudices. The same thing
happened to those nations of travellers who have been called
the crusaders; their minds were opened and raised by having
seen a multitude of different things, of having become
acquainted with other manners than their own. They found
themselves also placed in connexion with two states of
civilization, not only different from their own, but more
advanced--the Greek state of society on the one hand, and the
Mussulman on the other. ... It is curious to observe in the
chronicles the impression made by the crusaders on the
Mussulmans, who regarded them at first as the most brutal,
ferocious, and stupid barbarians they had ever seen. The
crusaders, on their part, were struck with the riches and
elegance of manners which they observed among the Mussulmans.
These first impressions were succeeded by frequent relations
between the Mussulmans and Christians. These became more
extensive and important than is commonly believed. ... There
is another circumstance which is worthy of notice. Down to the
time of the crusades, the court of Rome, the centre of the
Church, had been very little in communication with the laity,
unless through the medium of ecclesiastics; either legates
sent by the court of Rome, or the whole body of the bishops
and clergy. There were always some laymen in direct relation
with Rome; but upon the whole, it was by means of churchmen
that Rome had any communication with the people of different
countries. During the crusades, on the contrary, Rome became a
halting-place for a great portion of the crusaders, either in
going or returning. A multitude of laymen were spectators of
its policy and its manners, and were able to discover the
share which personal interest had in religious disputes. There
is no doubt that this newly-acquired knowledge inspired many
minds with a boldness hitherto unknown. When we consider the
state of the general mind at the termination of the crusades,
especially in regard to ecclesiastical matters, we cannot fail
to be struck with a singular fact: religious notions underwent
no change, and were not replaced by contrary or even different
opinions. Thought, notwithstanding, had become more free;
religious creeds were not the only subject on which the human
mind exercised its faculties; without abandoning them, it
began occasionally to wander from them, and to take other
directions. ... The social state of society had undergone an
analogous change. ... Without entering into the details ... we
may collect into a few general facts the influence of the
crusades on the social state of Europe. They greatly
diminished the number of petty fiefs, petty domains, and petty
proprietors; they concentrated property and power in a smaller
number of hands. It is from the time of the crusades that we
may observe the formation and growth of great fiefs--the
existence of feudal power on a large scale. ... This was one
of the most important results of the crusades. Even in those
cases where small proprietors preserved their fiefs, they did
not live upon them in such an insulated state as formerly. The
possessors of great fiefs became so many centres around which
the smaller ones were gathered, and near which they came to
live. During the crusades, small proprietors found it
necessary to place themselves in the train of some rich and
powerful chief, from whom they received assistance and
support. They lived with him, shared his fortune, and passed
through the same adventures that he did. When the crusaders
returned home, this social spirit, this habit of living in
intercourse with superiors continued to subsist, and had its
influence on the manners of the age. ... The extension of the
great fiefs, and the creation of a number of central points in
society, in place of the general dispersion which previously
existed, were the two principal effects of the crusades,
considered with respect to their influence upon feudalism. As
to the inhabitants of the towns, a result of the same nature
may easily be perceived. The crusades created great civic
communities. Petty commerce and petty industry were not
sufficient to give rise to communities such as the great
cities of Italy and Flanders. It was commerce on a great
scale--maritime commerce, and, especially, the commerce of the
East and West, which gave them birth; now it was the crusades
which gave to the maritime commerce the greatest impulse it
had yet received. On the whole, when we survey the state of
society at the end of the crusades, we find that the movement
tending to dissolution and dispersion, the movement of
universal localization (if I may be allowed such an
expression), had ceased, and had been succeeded by a movement
in the contrary direction, a movement of centralization. All
things tended to mutual approximation; small things were
absorbed in great ones, or gathered round them. Such was the
direction then taken by the progress of society."
F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 8 (volume 1).
www.gutenberg.org/files/61572/61572-h/61572-h.htm#Page_151
{638}
CRUSADES: A. D. 1383.
The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1420-1431.
Crusade against the Hussites.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1442-1444.
Christian Europe against the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
CRUSADES: A. D. 1467-1471.
Crusade Instigated by the Pope against George Podiebrad, king
of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471..
----------CRUSADES: End----------
CRYPTEIA, The.
See KRYPTEIA.
CTESIPHON.
"The Parthian monarchs, like the Mogul sovereigns of
Hindostan, delighted in the pastoral life of their Scythian
ancestors, and the imperial camp was frequently pitched in the
plain of Ctesiphon, on the eastern banks of the Tigris, at the
distance of only three miles from Seleucia. The innumerable
attendants on luxury and despotism resorted to the court, and
the little village of Ctesiphon insensibly swelled into a
great city. Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals
penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were
received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as
enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities
experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of
Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants,
tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph, Seleucia, already
exhausted by the neighborhood of a too powerful rival, sunk
under the fatal blow; but Ctesiphon, in about thirty-three
years, had sufficiently recovered its strength to maintain an
obstinate siege against the emperor Severus. The city was,
however, taken by assault; the king, who defended it in
person, escaped with precipitation; 100,000 captives and a
rich booty rewarded the fatigues of the Roman soldiers.
Notwithstanding these misfortunes, Ctesiphon succeeded to
Babylon and to Seleucia as one of the great capitals of the
East."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 8.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
In 637 A. D. Ctesiphon passed into the possession of the
Saracens.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 632-651.
ALSO IN:
G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 6.
See, also, MEDAIN.
CUATOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
CUBA: A. D. 1492-1493.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; and 1493-1496.
CUBA: A. D. 1511.
Spanish conquest and occupation of the island.
"Of the islands, Cuba was the second discovered; but no
attempt had been made to plant a colony there during the
lifetime of Columbus; who, indeed, after skirting the whole
extent of its southern coast, died in the conviction that it
was part of the continent. At length, in 1511, Diego, the son
and successor of the 'admiral,' who still maintained the seat
of government in Hispaniola, finding the mines much exhausted
there, proposed to occupy the neighbouring island of Cuba, or
Fernandina, as it is called, in compliment to the Spanish
monarch. He prepared a small force for the conquest, which he
placed under the command of Don Diego Velasquez. ...
Velasquez, or rather his lieutenant Narvaez, who took the
office on himself of scouring the country, met with no serious
opposition from the inhabitants, who were of the same family
with the effeminate natives of Hispaniola." After the
conquest, Velasquez was appointed governor, and established
his seat of government at St. Jago, on the southeast corner of
the island.
W. H. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, book 7.
CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
Slow development of the island.
Capture of Havana by the English.
Discontent with Spanish rule.
Conspiracies of revolution.
"Velasquez founded many of the towns of the island, the first
of which was Baracoa, then Bayamo, and in 1514 Trinidad, Santo
Espiritu, Puerto Principe; next, in 1515, Santiago de Cuba, as
also, in the same year, the town of Habana. ... This period
(1511-1607) is particularly interesting to the general reader
from the fact that in it the explorations of Hernandez de
Cadoba and Grijalva to Darien, Yucatan, etc., were
inaugurated,--events which had so much to do with the spread
of Spanish rule and discovery, paving the way as they did for
the exploration of Mexico under Hernando Cortes, who, in the
early history of Cuba, figures largely as the lieutenant of
the Governor Velasquez. ... In 1524, Diego Velasquez died,
--his death hastened, it is said, by the troubles brought upon
him by his disputes with his insubordinate lieutenant, Cortes.
... In the history of the improvement of the island, his
government will bear favorable comparison with many of the
later governments; and while that great evil, slavery, was
introduced into the island in his time, so also was the sugar
cane. ... Up to 1538, there seems to be nothing specially
striking in the general history of the island, if we except
the constant attacks with fire and sword of the
'filibusteros,' or pirates of all nations, from which most all
the sea-coast towns suffered more or less; but in that year
there arrived at Santiago de Cuba a man destined to play an
important part in the history and discovery of the new world,
and named as Provincial Governor of Florida as well as of
Cuba,--I allude to Hernando de Soto, who brought with him 10
large vessels, prepared and fitted out expressly for the
conquest of the new Spanish territory of Florida. After much
care and preparation, this expedition started out from the
city of Habana, the 12th of May [see FLORIDA: A. D.
1528-1542]. ... In this period, also, was promulgated that
order, secured, it is believed, by the noble efforts of Padre
Las Casas, prohibiting the enslaving of the aborigines; while,
also, such had become its importance as a town, all vessels
directed to and from Mexico were ordered to stop at Havana. In
the period of years that elapsed from 1607 to 1762, the island
seems to have been in a perfect state of lethargy, except the
usual changes of its many Governors, and the raids made upon
it by pirates, or by more legalized enemies in the form of
French and English men-of-war. In this latter year, however,
occurred an event of much import, from the fact that after it,
or upon its occurrence, the Government of Spain was led to see
the great importance of Cuba, and particularly Havana, as the
'Key to the New World,'--this event was the taking of Havana
by the English.
{639}
On the 6th of June, 1762, there arrived off the port of Havana
an English squadron of 32 ships and frigates, with some 200
transports, bringing with them a force of nearly 20,000 men of
all arms, under command of the Duke of Albemarle. This
formidable armament, the largest that America had ever seen,
laid siege to the city of Havana, whose garrison consisted at
that time of only about 2,700 regulars and the volunteers that
took up arms immediately for the defense of the place. ... The
garrison, however, made a very gallant and prolonged defense,
notwithstanding the smallness of their numbers, and finally,
surrendering, were permitted to march out with the honors of
war, the English thus coming into possession of the most
important defences on the coast, and, subsequently, taking
possession of the town of Matanzas. Remaining in possession of
this portion of the Island of Cuba for many months (until July
6, 1763), the English, by importing negro labor to cultivate
the large tracts of wild land, and by shipping large
quantities of European merchandize, gave a start to the trade
and traffic of the island that pushed it far on its way to the
state of prosperity it has now reached; but by the treaty of
peace, at Paris, in February, 1763 [see Seven Years War], was
restored to Spain the portion of the island wrested from her
by the English. ... In this period (1762-1801) the island made
rapid advances in improvement and civilization, many of the
Captains-General of this period doing much to improve the
towns and the people, beautifying the streets, erecting
buildings, etc. In 1763, a large emigration took place from
Florida, and in 1795 the French emigrants from Santo Domingo
came on to the island in large numbers. ... From 1801, rapid
increase in the prosperity of the island has taken place. ...
At various times insurrections, some of them quite serious in
their nature, have shown what the natural desire of the native
population is for greater privileges and freedom. ... In 1823,
there was a society of 'soles,' as it was called, formed for
the purpose of freeing the island, having at its head young D.
Francisco Lemus, and having for its pretext that the island
was about to be sold to England. In 1829, there was discovered
the conspiracy of the Black Eagle, as it was called (Aguila
Negra), an attempt on the part of the population to obtain
their freedom, some of the Mexican settlers in the island
being prominent in it. The insurrection, or attempt at one, by
the blacks in 1844, was remarkable for its wide-spread
ramifications among the slaves of the island, as well as its
thorough organization,--the intention being to murder all the
whites on the island. Other minor insurrections there were,
but it remained for Narciso Lopez, with a force of some 300
men, to make the most important attempt [1851], in which he
lost his life, to free the island."
S. Hazard, Cuba with Pen and Pencil, pages 547-550.
ALSO IN:
M. M. Ballou, History of Cuba, chapter 1-3.
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 38 (volume 4).
J. Entick, History of the Late War, volume 5, pages 363-386.
D. Turnbull, Cuba, chapter 22-24.
CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
Acquisition coveted by the slave-power in the United States.
Attempted purchase.
Filibustering schemes.
The Ostend Manifesto.
"When the Spanish colonies in America became independent, they
abolished slavery. Apprehensive that the republics of Mexico
and Columbia would be anxious to wrest Cuba and Porto Rico
from Spain, secure their independence, and introduce into
those islands the idea, if they did not establish the fact, of
freedom, the slave-masters [of the United States] at once
sought to guard against what they deemed so calamitous an
event. ... But after the annexation of Texas, there was a
change of feeling and purpose, and Cuba, from being an object
of dread, became an object of vehement desire. The
propagandists, strengthened and emboldened by that signal
triumph, now turned their eyes towards this beautiful 'isle of
the sea,' as the theatre of new exploits; and they determined
to secure the 'gem of the Antilles' for the coronet of their
great and growing power. During Mr. Polk's administration an
attempt was made to purchase it, and the sum of $100,000,000
was offered therefor. But the offer was promptly declined.
What, however, could not be bought it was determined to steal,
and filibustering movements and expeditions became the order
of the day. For no sooner was President Taylor inaugurated
than he found movements on foot in that direction; and, in
August, 1849, he issued a proclamation, affirming his belief
that an 'armed expedition' was being fitted out 'against Cuba
or some of the provinces of Mexico,' and calling upon all good
citizens' to discountenance and prevent any such enterprise.'
In 1851 an expedition, consisting of some 500 men, sailed from
New Orleans under Lopez, a Cuban adventurer. But though it
effected a landing, it was easily defeated, and its leader and
a few of his followers were executed. Soon afterward, a secret
association, styling itself the Order of the Lone Star, was
formed in several of the Southern cities, having a similar
object in view; but it attracted little notice and
accomplished nothing. ... In August, 1854, President Pierce
instructed Mr. Marcy, his Secretary of State, to direct
Buchanan, Mason and Soulé, ministers respectively at the
courts of London, Paris and Madrid, to convene in some
European city and confer with each other in regard to the
matter of gaining Cuba to the United States. They met
accordingly, in October, at Ostend. The results of their
deliberations were published in a manifesto, in which the
reasons are set forth for the acquisition; and the declaration
was made that the Union could never enjoy repose and security 'as
long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries.' But the
great source of anxiety, the controlling motive, was the
apprehension that, unless so annexed, she would 'be
Africanized and become a second San Domingo,' thus 'seriously
to endanger' the Union. This paper attracted great attention
and caused much astonishment. It was at first received with
incredulity, as if there had been some mistake or imposition
practised. ... But there was no mistake. ... It was the
deliberate utterance of the conference, and it received the
indorsement of Mr. Pierce and his administration. The
Democratic national conventions of 1856 and of 1860 were quite
as explicit as were the authors of the Ostend manifesto 'in
favor of the acquisition of Cuba.'"
H. Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power in America, volume 2, ch.47.
{640}
ALSO IN:
H. Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History
of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 2, and volume 5, chapter 1.
G. T. Curtis, Life of James Buchanan, volume 2, chapter 6.
M. M. Ballou, History of Cuba, chapter 3.
J. J. Roche, The Story of the Filibusters, chapter 3.
----------CUBA: End----------
CUBIT, The.
"The length of the Egyptian foot is ... shown to be equal to
1.013 English foot, or 12.16 inches (0.3086 metre) and the
cubit to 18.24 English inches, or 0.463 metre. This cubit was
identical with the Phœnician or Olympic cubit, afterwards
adopted in Greece. ... The second of the two Egyptian cubits
was the royal cubit, or cubit of Memphis, of seven palms or
twenty-eight digits. ... The mean length of the Egyptian royal
cubit is ... ascertained to be 20.67 English inches, or 525
mm. ... There is much conflict of opinion as to the actual
length of the several cubits in use by the Jews at different
periods; but the fact that Moses always mentions the Egyptian
measures ... as well as the Egyptian weights ... proves that
the Hebrews originally brought their weights and measures from
Egypt. ... In his dissertation on cubits, Sir Isaac Newton
states grounds for his opinion that the sacred cubit of the
Jews was equal to 24.7 of our inches, and that the royal cubit
of Memphis was equivalent to five-sixths of this sacred Jewish
cubit, or 20.6 inches."
H. W. Chisholm, On the Science of Weighing and
Measuring, chapter 2.
CUCUTA, The Convention of.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
CUFA.
See BUSSORAH and KUFA.
CUICIDH, The.
See TUATH, THE.
CULDEES, The.
It used to be set forth by religious historians that the
Culdees were an ardent religious fraternity in Scotland,
probably founded by Columba, the saintly Irish missionary of
the sixth century, and having its principal seat in Iona; that
they "were the lights of Scotland in a dark and superstitious
age"; that they struggled for several centuries against the
errors and the oppressive pretensions of Rome, and that "the
strength and vigor of the Reformation in Scotland, where the
Papal power received its first and most decisive check, may be
traced not indirectly to the faith, the doctrines, and the
spirit of the ancient Culdees." It was claimed for the
Presbyterian Church that its form of church government
prevailed among the Culdees, while the supporters of
Episcopacy found evidences to the contrary. But all these
views, with all the controversies fomented by them, have been
dissipated by modern historical investigation. The facts
gathered by Dean Reeves and published in 1864, in his work on
the "Culdees of the British Islands," supported by the more
recent studies of Mr. W. F. Skene, are now generally accepted.
Says Mr. Skene, (Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 6): "It is not
till after the expulsion of the Columban monks from the
kingdom of the Picts, in the beginning of the eighth century,
that the name of Culdee appears. To Adamnan, to Eddi and to
Bede it was totally unknown. They knew of no body of clergy
who bore this name, and in the whole range of ecclesiastical
history there is nothing more utterly destitute of authority
than the application of this name to the Columban monks of the
sixth and seventh centuries, or more utterly baseless than the
fabric which has been raised upon that assumption." Mr.
Skene's conclusion is that the Culdees sprang from an ascetic
order called Deicolæ or God-worshippers; that in Irish the
name became Ceile De, thence corrupted into Culdee; that they
were hermits, who became in time associated in communities,
and were finally brought under the canonical rule of the Roman
church, along with the secular clergy.
CULEUS, The.
See AMPHORA.
CULHUACAN.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.
CULLODEN, Battle of (1746).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
CULM, OR KULM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).
CULTURKAMPF, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
CUMÆ.--CUMÆAN SIBYL.
"Earlier than 735 B. C., ... though we do not know the precise
era of its commencement, there existed one solitary Grecian
establishment in the Tyrrhenian Sea,--the Campanian Cumæ, near
Cape Misenum; which the more common opinion of chronologists
supposed to have been founded in 1050 B. U. and which has even
been carried back by some authors to 1139 B. C. ... We may at
least feel certain that it is the most ancient Grecian
establishment in any part of Italy. ... The Campanian
Cumæ--known almost entirely by this its Latin
designation--received its name and a portion of its
inhabitants from the Æolic Kymê in Asia Minor. ... Cumæ,
situated on the neck of the peninsula which terminates in Cape
Misenum, occupied a lofty and rocky hill overhanging the sea
and difficult of access on the land side. ... In the hollow
rock under the very walls of the town was situated the cavern
of the prophetic Sibyl,--a parallel and reproduction of the
Gergithian Sibyl, near Kymê in Æolis: in the immediate
neighborhood, too, stood the wild woods and dark lake of
Avernus, consecrated to the subterranean gods, and offering an
establishment of priests, with ceremonies evoking the dead,
for purposes of prophecy or for solving doubts and mysteries.
It was here that Grecian imagination localized the Cimmerians
and the fable of Odysseus; and the Cumæans derived gains from
the numerous visitors to this holy spot, perhaps hardly less
than those of the inhabitants of Krissa from the vicinity of
Delphi. Of the relations of these Cumæans with the Hellenic
world generally, we unfortunately know nothing; but they seem
to have been in intimate connection with Rome during the time
of the kings, and especially during that of the last king
Tarquin,--forming the intermediate link between the Greek and
Latin world, whereby the feelings of the Teukrians and
Gergitheans near the Æolic Kymê and the legendary stories of
Trojan as well as Grecian heroes,--Æneas and Odysseus--passed
into the antiquarian imagination of Rome and Latium. The
writers of the Augustan age knew Cumæ only in its decline, and
wondered at the vast extent of its ancient walls, yet
remaining in their time. But during the two centuries prior to
500 B. C. these walls inclosed a full and thriving population,
in the plenitude of prosperity."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 22.
See, also, SIBYLS
CUMANS, OR KOMANS, The.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
CUMBERLAND GAP, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).
{641}
CUMBRIA:
The British kingdom.
"The Britons of Cumbria occupy a tolerably large space on the
map, but a very small one in history;--their annals have
entirely perished;--and nothing authentic remains concerning
them, except a very few passages, wholly consisting of
incidental notices relating to their subjection and their
misfortunes. Romance would furnish much more; for it was in
Cumbria that Rhyderc, or Roderic the magnificent, is therein
represented to have reigned, and Merlin to have prophesied.
Arthur held his court in merry Carlisle; and Peredur, the
Prince of Sunshine, whose name we find amongst the princes of
Strathclyde, is one of the great heroes of the 'Mabinogion,'
or tales of youth, long preserved by tradition amongst the
Cymri. These fantastic personages, however, are of importance
in one point of view, because they show, what we might
otherwise forget--that from the Ribble in Lancashire, or
thereabouts, up to the Clyde, there existed a dense population
composed of Britons, who preserved their national language and
customs, agreeing in all respects with the Welsh of the
present day. So that even in the tenth century, the ancient
Britons still inhabited the greater part of the western coast
of the island, however much they had been compelled to yield
to the political supremacy of the Saxon invaders. The 'Regnum
Cumbrense' comprehended many districts, probably governed by
petty princes or Reguli, in subordination to a chief monarch
or Pendragon. Reged appears to have been somewhere in the
vicinity of Annandale. Strathclyde is of course the district
or vale of Clydesdale. In this district, or state, was
situated Alcluyd, or Dunbritton, now Dumbarton, where the
British kings usually resided; and the whole Cumbrian kingdom
was not infrequently called Strathclyde, from the ruling or
principal state; just as the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland is often designated in common language as
'England,' because England is the portion where the monarch
and legislature are found. Many dependencies of the Cumbrian
kingdom extended into modern Yorkshire, and Leeds was the
frontier town between the Britons and the Angles. ... The
kings of Cumbria became the vassals, or 'men,' of the
Anglo-Saxon kings. Eugenius had thus submitted to Athelstane.
Of the nature of the obligation I shall speak hereafter. The
Anglo-Saxon kings appear to have been anxious to extend and
confirm their supremacy; Edmund proceeded against Donald, or
Dumhnail, the Scottish King of Cumbria (A. D. 945), with the
most inveterate and implacable hostility. ... Edmund, having
thus obtained possession of Cumbria, granted the country to
Malcolm, King of the Scots, upon condition, as the chronicles
say, of being his co-operator, both by sea and by land. ...
From this period the right of the Scottish kings or princes to
the kingdom of Cumbria, as vassals of the English crown, seems
to have been fully admitted: and the rights of the Scottish
kings to the 'Earldom of Cumberland'--for such it was
afterwards termed--were founded upon Edmund's grant. The
Britons of Strathclyde, and Reged, and Cumbria, gradually
melted away into the surrounding population; and, losing their
language, ceased to be discernible as a separate race. Yet it
is most probable that this process was not wholly completed
until a comparatively recent period."
F. Palgrave, History of the Anglo-Saxons,
chapter 11.
Cumbria and Cambria (Wales), the two states long maintained by
the Britons, against the Angles and Saxons, bore, in reality,
the same name, Cumbria being the more correct form of it. The
earliest development of the so-called Welsh poetry seems to
have been in Cumbria rather than in Wales. Taliesen and
Aneurin were Cumbrian bards, and Arthur, if any historical
personage stands behind his kingly shadow, was probably a
Cumbrian hero.
J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.
ALSO IN:
W. F. Skene, The Four Ancient Books of Wales.
See, also, KYMRY, ALCLYDE,
and SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.
CUNARD LINE, The founding of the.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.
CUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
CUNEIFORM WRITING.
The characters employed for the written languages of ancient
Babylonia and Assyria, have been called cuneiform, from the
Latin cunens, a wedge, because the marks composing them are
wedge-shaped. All knowledge of those characters and of the
languages expressed in them had been lost for many centuries,
and its recent recovery is one of the most marvelous
achievements of our age. "Travellers had discovered
inscriptions engraved in cuneiform, or, as they were also
termed, arrow-headed characters, on the ruined monuments of
Persepolis and other ancient sites in Persia. Some of these
monuments were known to have been erected by the Achæmenian
princes--Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and his successors--and
it was therefore inferred that the inscriptions also had been
carved by order of the same kings. The inscriptions were in
three different systems of cuneiform writing; and since the
three kinds of inscription were always placed side by side, it
was evident that they represented different versions of the
same text. ... It was clear that the three versions of the
Achæmenian inscriptions were addressed to the three chief
populations of the Persian Empire, and that the one which
invariably came first was composed in ancient Persian, the
language of the sovereign himself. Now this Persian version
happened to offer the decipherer less difficulties than the
two others which accompanied it. The number of distinct
characters employed in writing it did not exceed forty, while
the words were divided from one another by a slanting wedge.
Some of the words contained so many characters that it was
plain that these latter must denote letters and not syllables,
and that consequently the Persian cuneiform system must have
consisted of an alphabet, and not of a syllabary. It was
further plain that the inscriptions had to be read from left
to right, since the ends of all the lines were exactly
underneath one another on the left side, whereas they
terminated irregularly on the right. ... The clue to the
decipherment of the inscriptions was first discovered by the
successful guess of a German scholar, Grotefend. Grotefend
noticed that the inscriptions generally began with three or
four words, one of which varied, while the others remained
unchanged. The variable word had three forms, though the same
form always appeared on the same monument. Grotefend,
therefore, conjectured that this word represented the name of
a king, the words which followed it being royal titles."
Working on this conjecture, he identified the three names with
Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and one of the supposed titles
with a Zend word for "king," which gave him a considerable
part of the cuneiform alphabet. He was followed in the work by
Burnouf, Lassen and Sir Henry Rawlinson, until, finally,
Assyrian inscriptions were read with "almost as much certainty
as a page of the Old Testament."
A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the ancient monuments,
chapter 1.
{642}
CUNIBERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 691-700.
CUNIMARÉ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
GUCK OR Coco GROUP.
CURDS, OR KURDS, The.
See CARDUCHI.
CURFEW-BELL, The.
"Except from its influence upon the imagination, it would be
hardly worth while to notice the legend of the curfew-bell, so
commonly supposed to have been imposed by William [the
Conqueror] upon the English, as a token of degradation and
slavery; but the 'squilla di lontano, che paja il giorno
pianger che si muore,' was a universal custom of police
throughout the whole of mediaeval Europe, not unconnected with
devotional feeling."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
volume 3, page 627.
"In the year [1061] after King Henry's death [Henry I. of
France], in a Synod held at Caen by the Duke's authority [Duke
William of Normandy, who became in 1066 the Conqueror, and
King of England], and attended by Bishops, Abbots, and Barons,
it was ordered that a bell should be rung every evening, at
hearing of which prayer should be offered, and all people
should get within their houses and shut their doors. This odd
mixture of piety and police seems to be the origin of the
famous and misrepresented Curfew. Whatever was its object, it
was at least not ordained as any special hardship on William's
English subjects."
E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest
of England, chapter 12, section 3 (volume 3).
CURIA, Ancient Roman.
See COMITIA-CURIATA.
CURIA, Municipal, of the later Roman empire.
Decuriones.
"It is only necessary in this work to describe the general
type of the municipal organization which existed in the
provinces of the Roman Empire after the time of Constantine.
... The proprietors of land in the Roman provinces generally
dwelt in towns and cities, as a protection against brigands
and man-stealers. Every town had an agricultural district
which formed its territory, and the landed proprietors
constituted the municipality. The whole local authority was
vested in an oligarchical senate called the Curia, consisting
probably of one hundred of the wealthiest landed proprietors
in the city or township. This body elected the municipal
authorities and officers, and filled up vacancies in its own
body. It was therefore independent of the proprietors from
among whom it was taken, and whose interests it ought to have
represented. The Curia--not the body of landed
proprietors--formed therefore the Roman municipality. The
Curia was used by the imperial government as an instrument of
fiscal extortion."
G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2, section 1.
"When the progress of fiscal tyranny had almost sapped the
vigor of society, the decuriones [members of the municipal
curiæ, called, also, curiales] ... being held jointly
responsible for the taxation, became the veriest slaves of the
empire. Responsible jointly for the taxes, they were, by the
same token, responsible for their colleagues and their
successors; their estates were made the securities of the
imperial dues; and if any estate was abandoned by its
proprietor, they were compelled to occupy it and meet the
imposts exigible from it. Yet they could not relinquish their
offices; they could not leave the city except by stealth; they
could not enter the army, or the priesthood, or any office
which might relieve them from municipal functions. ... Even
the children of the Curial were adscribed to his functions,
and could engage in no course of life inconsistent with the
onerous and intolerable duty. In short, this dignity was so
much abhorred that the lowest plebeian shunned admission to
it, the members of it made themselves bondmen, married
slave-women, or joined the barbaric hordes in order to escape
it; and malefactors, Jews and heretics were sometimes
condemned to it, as an appropriate penalty for their
offenses."
P. Godwin, History of France:
Ancient Gaul, book 2, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 3, chapter 9.
F. Guizot, History of Civilization, volume 2
(volume 1, France), lecture 2.
See, also ROME: A. D. 363-379.
CURIA, Papal.
College of Cardinals.
Consistory.
"The Court of Rome, commonly called the Roman Curia, consisted
of a number of dignified ecclesiastics who assisted the Pope
in the executive administration. The Pontiff's more intimate
advisers, or, as we should say, his privy council, were the
College of Cardinals [see PAPACY: A. D. 1059], consisting of a
certain number of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and
cardinal deacons. The cardinal deacons, at first seven and
afterwards fourteen in number, were originally ecclesiastics
appointed as overseers and guardians of the sick and poor in
the different districts of Rome. Equal to them in rank were
the fifty cardinal priests, as the chief priests of the
principal Roman churches were called; who, with the cardinal
deacons, formed, in very early times, the presbytery, or
senate of the Bishop of Rome. ... According to some
authorities, cardinal bishops were instituted in the 9th
century; according to others not till the 11th, when seven
bishops of the dioceses nearest to Rome--Ostia, Porto,
Velitrae, Tusculum, Præneste, Tibur, and the Sabines--were
adopted by the Pope partly as his assistants in the service of
the Lateran, and partly in the general administration of the
Church. In process of time, the appointment of such cardinal
bishops was extended not only to the rest of Italy but also to
foreign countries. Though the youngest of the cardinals in
point of time, cardinal bishops were the highest in rank, and
enjoyed the pre-eminence in the College. Their titles were
derived from their dioceses. ... But they were also called by
their own names. The number of the cardinals was indefinite
and varying. The Council of Basle endeavoured to restrict it
to 24. But this was not carried out, and Pope Sixtus V. at
length fixed the number at 70. The Council called the
Consistory, which advised with the Pope both in temporal and
ecclesiastical matters, was ordinarily private, and confined
to the cardinals alone; though on extraordinary occasions, and
for solemn purposes of state, as in the audiences of foreign
ambassadors, &c., other prelates, and even distinguished
laymen, might appear in it."
T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, volume 1, page 38.
{643}
CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.
"The Curia Regis [under the Norman Kings of England], the
supreme tribunal of judicature, of which the Exchequer was the
financial department or session, was ... the court of the king
sitting to administer justice with the advice of his
counsellors; those counsellors being, in the widest
acceptation, the whole body of tenants-in-chief, but in the
more limited usage, the great officers of the household and
specially appointed judges. The great gatherings of the
national council may be regarded as full sessions of the Curia
Regis, or the Curia Regis as a perpetual committee of the
national council."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 127.
"Not long after the granting of Magna Charta, the Curia Regis
was permanently divided into three committees or courts, each
taking a certain portion of the business:
(1) Fiscal matters were confined to the Exchequer;
(2) civil disputes, where neither the king's interest nor any
matter savouring of a criminal nature were involved, were
decided in the Common Pleas; and
(3) the court of King's Bench retained all the remaining
business and soon acquired the exclusive denomination of the
ancient Curia Regis."
"But the same staff of judges was still retained for all three
courts, with the chief justiciar at their head. Towards the
end of Henry III.'s reign, the three courts received each a
distinct staff, and on the abolition by Edward I. of the
office of chief justiciar, the only remaining bond of union
being severed, they became completely separated. Some trace of
their ancient unity of organization always survived, however,
in the court of Exchequer Chamber; until at length after six
centuries of independent existence they were again united by
the Judicature Act, 1873. Together with the Court of Chancery
and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty courts, they now form
divisions of a consolidated High Court of Justice, itself a
branch of the Supreme Court of Judicature."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History, page 154.
"The Aula Regia, or Curia Regis ... has been described in
various and at first sight contradictory terms. Thus it has
been called the highest Law Court, the Ministry of the King, a
Legislative Assembly, &c. The apparent inconsistency of these
descriptions vanishes on closer inspection, and throws great
light on mediæval history. For the Curia Regis possessed every
attribute which has been ascribed to it."
A. V. Dicey, The Privy Council, part 1.
ALSO IN:
R. Gneist, History of the English Constitution, chapter 19.
CURIALES.
See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.
CURIOSOLITÆ, The.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
CURTIS, George W., and Civil-Service Reform.
See CIVIL SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
CURULE ÆDILES.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
CURULE CHAIR.
In ancient Rome, "certain high offices of state conferred upon
the holder the right of using, upon public occasions, an ivory
chair of peculiar form. This chair was termed Sella Curulis.
... This was somewhat in the form of a modern camp-stool."
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapters 2 and 4.
CURZOLA, Battle of (1298).
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
CUSCO: The Capital of the Incas of Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1533-154.8.
CUSH.--CUSHITES.
"Genesis, like the Hebrews of later date, includes under the
name of Cush the nations dwelling to the South, the Nubians,
Ethiopians and tribes of South Arabia."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 1.
See, also, HAMITES, and ARABIA.
CUSHING, Lieutenant William B.
Destruction of the ram Albemarle.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).
CUSTER'S LAST BATTLE.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
CUSTOMS DUTIES.
See TARIFF.
CUSTOMS UNION, The German (Zollverein).
See TARIFF: A. D. 1833.
CUSTOZZA, Battles of (1848 and 1866).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849; and 1862-1866.
CUTLER, Manasseh, and the Ordinance of 1787.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1787.
CUYRIRI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
CYCLADES, The.--SPORADES, The.
"Among the Ionic portion of Hellas are to be reckoned (besides
Athens) Eubœa, and the numerous group of islands included
between the southernmost Eubœan promontory, the eastern coast
of Peloponnesus, and the northwestern coast of Krête. Of these
islands some are to be considered as outlying prolongations,
in a southeasterly direction, of the mountain-system of
Attica; others of that of Eubœa; while a certain number of
them lie apart from either system, and seem referable to a
volcanic origin. To the first class belong Keôs, Kythnus,
Seriphus, Pholegandrus, Sikinus, Gyarus, Syra, Paros, and
Antiparos; to the second class Andros, Tênos, Mykonos, Dêlos,
Naxos, Amorgos; to the third class Kimôlus, Mêlos, Thêra.
These islands passed amongst the ancients by the general name
of the Cyclades and the Sporades; the former denomination
being commonly understood to comprise those which immediately
surrounded the sacred island of Dêlos,--the latter being given
to those which lay more scattered and apart. But the names are
not applied with uniformity or steadiness even in ancient
times: at present, the whole group are usually known by the
title of Cyclades."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 12.
CYDONIA, Battles and siege of (B. C. 71-68).
See CRETE: B. C. 68-66.
CYLON, Conspiracy of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
CYMBELINE, Kingdom of.
See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.
CYMRY, The.
See KYMRY, THE.
CYNOSARGES AT ATHENS, The.
See GYMNASIA, GREEK.
CYNOSCEPHALÆ, Battle of (B. C. 364).
The battle in which Pelopidas, the Theban patriot, friend and
colleague of Epaminondas, was slain. It was fought B. C. 364,
in Thessaly, near Pharsalus, on the heights called
Cynoscephalæ, or the Dog's Heads, and delivered the Thessalian
cities from the encroachments of the tyrant of Pheræ.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 40.
CYNOSCEPHALÆ: (B. C. 197).
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
{644}
CYNOSSEMA, Naval battle of.
Two successive naval battles fought, one in July and the
second in October, B. C. 411, between the Athenians and the
Peloponnesian allies, in the Hellespont, are jointly called
the Battle of Cynossema. The name was taken from the headland
called Cynossema, or the "Dog's Tomb," "ennobled by the legend
and the chapel of the Trojan queen Hecuba." The Athenians had
the advantage in both encounters, especially in the latter
one, when they were joined by Alcibiades, with reenforcements,
just in time to decide the doubtful fortunes of the day.
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 63.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
CYNURIANS, The.
See KYNURIANS.
CYPRUS: Origin of the name.
"The Greek name of the island was derived from the abundance
in which it produced the beautiful plant ('Copher') which
furnishes the 'al-henna,' coveted throughout the East for the
yellow dye which it communicates to the nails. It was rich in
mines of copper, which has obtained for it the name by which
it is known in the modern languages of the West."
J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4.
CYPRUS: Early History.
"The first authentic record with regard to Cyprus is an
inscription on an Egyptian tombstone of the 17th century B.
C., from which it appears that the island was conquered by
Thothmes III. of Egypt, in whose reign the exodus of the
Children of Israel is supposed to have taken place. This was
no doubt anterior to the establishment of any Greek colonies,
and probably, also, before the Phœnicians had settled in the
island. ... As appears from various inscriptions and other
records, Cyprus became subject successively to Egypt, as just
mentioned, to Assyria, to Egypt again in 568 B. C., when it
was conquered by Amasis, and in 525 B. C. to Persia. Meanwhile
the power of the Greeks had been increasing. ... The
civilization of the West was about to assert itself at
Marathon and Salamis; and Cyprus, being midway between East
and West, could not fail to be involved in the coming
conflict. On the occasion of the Ionic revolt [see PERSIA: B.
C. 521-493] the Greek element in Cyprus showed its strength:
and in 502 B. C. the whole island, with the single exception
of the Phœnician town of Amathus, took part with the Ionians
in renouncing the authority of the Persian king." But in the
war which followed, the Persians, aided by the Phœnicians of
the mainland, reconquered Cyprus, and the Cyprian Greeks were
long disheartened. They recovered their courage, however,
about 410 B. C. when Evagoras, a Greek of the royal house of
Teucer, made himself master of Salamis, and finally
established a general sovereignty over the island--even
extending his power to the mainland and subjugating Tyre. "The
reign of Evagoras is perhaps the most brilliant period in the
history of Cyprus. Before his death, which took place in 374
B. C., he had raised the island from the position of a mere
dependency of one or other of the great Eastern monarchies,
had gained for it a place among the lending states of Greece,
and had solved the question as to which division of the
ancient world the Cyprian people should be assigned.
Consequently when, some forty years later, the power of Persia
was shattered by Alexander the Great at the battle of Issus,
the kings of the island hastened to offer him their submission
as the leader of the Greek race, and sent 120 ships to assist
him in the siege of Tyre." After Alexander's death, Cyprus was
disputed between Antigonus and Ptolemy.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
The king of Egypt secured the prize, and the island remained
under the Greek-Egyptian crown, until it passed, with the rest
of the heritage of the Ptolemys to the Romans. "When the
[Roman] empire was divided, on the death of Constantine the
Great, Cyprus, like Malta, passed into the hands of the
Byzantine Emperors. Like Malta, also, it was exposed to
frequent attacks from the Arabs; but, although they several
times occupied the island and once held it for no less than
160 years, they were always expelled again by the Byzantine
Emperors, and never established themselves there as firmly as
they did in Malta. The crusades first brought Cyprus into
contact with the western nations of modern Europe."
C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of British Colonies,
section 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
R. H. Lang, CYPRUS, chapter 1-8.
F. Von Loher, CYPRUS, chapter 12 and 30.
L. P. Di Cesnola, Cyprus; its ancient cities, &c.
CYPRUS: B. C. 58.
Annexed to the Roman Dominions.
"The annexation of Cyprus was decreed in 696 [B. C. 58] by the
people [of Rome], that is, by the leaders of the democracy,
the support given to piracy by the Cypriots being alleged as
the official reason why that course should now be adopted.
Marcus Cato, intrusted by his opponents with the execution of
this measure, came to the island without an army; but he had
no need of one. The king [a brother of the king of Egypt] took
poison; the inhabitants submitted without offering resistance
to their inevitable fate, and were placed under the governor
of Cilicia."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4.
CYPRUS: A. D. 117.
Jewish insurrection.
"This rich and pleasant territory [the island of Cyprus] had
afforded a refuge to the Jews of the continent through three
generations of disturbance and alarm, and the Hebrew race was
now [A. D. 117] probably not inferior there in number to the
native Syrians or Greeks. On the first outburst of a Jewish
revolt [against the Roman domination, in the last year of the
reign of Trajan] the whole island fell into the hands of the
insurgents, and became an arsenal and rallying point for the
insurrection, which soon spread over Egypt, Cyrene and
Mesopotamia. The leader of the revolt in Cyprus bore the name
of Artemion, but we know no particulars of the war in this
quarter, except that 240,000 of the native population is said
to have fallen victims to the exterminating fury of the
insurgents. When the rebellion was at last extinguished in
blood, the Jews were forbidden thenceforth to set foot on the
island; and even if driven thither by stress of weather, the
penalty of death was mercilessly enforced. ... The Jewish
population of Cyrenaica outnumbered the natives. ... The
hostility of the Jews in these parts was less directed against
the central government and the Roman residents than the native
race. ... Of these 220,000 are said to have perished."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 65.
{645}
CYPRUS: A. D. 1191.
Conquest by Richard Cœur de Lion.
Founding of the Latin Kingdom.
During the civil strife and confusion of the last years of the
Comnenian dynasty of emperors at Constantinople, one of the
members of the family, Isaac Comnenos, secured the sovereignty
of Cyprus and assumed the title of emperor. With the alliance
of the king of Sicily, he defeated the Byzantine forces sent
against him, and was planted securely, to all appearance, on
his newly built throne at the time of the Third Crusade.
Circumstances at that time (A. D. 1191) gave him a fatal
opportunity to provoke the English crusaders. First, he seized
the property and imprisoned the crews of three English ships
that were wrecked on the Cyprian coast. Not satisfied with
that violence, he refused shelter from the storm to a vessel
which bore Berengaria of Navarre, the intended wife of King
Richard. "The king of England immediately sailed to Cyprus;
and when Isaac refused to deliver up the ship-wrecked
crusaders, and to restore their property, Richard landed his
army and commenced a series of operations, which ended in his
conquering the whole island, in which he abolished the
administrative institutions of the Eastern Empire, enslaving
the Greek race, introducing the feudal system, by which he
riveted the chains of a foreign domination, and then gave it
as a present to Guy of Lusignan, the titular king of
Jerusalem, who became the founder of a dynasty of Frank kings
in Cyprus."
G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1.
Before giving Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan, Richard had sold the
island to the Templars, and Guy had to pay the knights heavily
for the extinguishment of their rights. Richard, therefore,
was rather a negotiator than a giver in the transaction.
William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and
Modern History, lecture 8.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.
The kingdom under the house of Lusignan.
"The house of Lusignan maintained itself in Cyprus for nearly
three centuries, during which, although fallen somewhat from
the blessedness which had been broken up by Isaac Comnenus,
the island seems to have retained so much fertility and
prosperity as to make its later history very dark by contrast.
... Guy, we are told, received Cyprus for life only, and did
homage for the island to Richard. As he already bore the title
of king, the question whether he should hold Cyprus as a
kingdom does not seem to have arisen. ... On his death, in
April, 1194, Richard putting in no claim for the reversion,
his brother, Amalric of Lusignan, constable of Palestine,
entered on the possession as his heir. ... Amalric succeeded
to the crown of Jerusalem; the crown of Jerusalem, which,
after the year 1269, became permanently united with that of
Cyprus, was an independent crown, and the king of Jerusalem an
anointed king: the union of the crowns therefore seems to have
precluded any question as to the tenure by which the kingdom
of Cyprus should be held. ... The homage then due to Richard,
or to the crown of England, ceased at the death of Guy."
William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.
See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1291-1310.
The Knights Hospitallers of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1489-1570.
A Venetian dependency.
The last reigning king of Cyprus was James II., a bastard
brother of Queen Charlotte, whom he drove from the Cypriot
throne in 1464. This king married a Venetian lady, Caterina
Cornaro, in 1471 and was declared to be "the son-in·law of the
Republic." The unscrupulous republic is said to have poisoned
its son·in-law in order to secure the succession. He died in
1473, and a son, born after his death, lived but two years.
Cyprus was then ruled by the Venetians for fifteen years in
the name of Caterina, who finally renounced her rights wholly
in favor of the republic. After 1489, until its conquest by
the Turks, Cyprus was a Venetian dependency, in form as well
as in fact, but tributary to the Sultan of Egypt.
William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1570-1571.
Conquest by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1821.
Turkish massacre of Christians.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
CYPRUS: A. D. 1878.
Control surrendered by Turkey to England.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878, THE TREATIES OF
SAN STEFANO AND BERLIN.
----------CYPRUS: End----------
CYREANS, The.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
CYRENAICA.--CYRENE.--KYRENE.
A city, growing into a kingdom, which was founded at an early
day by the Greeks, on that projecting part of the coast of
Libya, or northern Africa, which lies opposite to Greece. The
first settlers were said to have been from the little island
of Thera, whose people were bold and enterprising. The site
they chose "was of an unusual nature, especially for
islanders, and lay several miles away from the sea, the shores
of which were devoid of natural bays for anchorage. But, with
this exception, every advantage was at hand: instead of the
narrow stony soil of their native land, they found the most
fertile corn-fields, a broad table-land with a healthy
atmosphere and watered by fresh springs; a well-wooded
coast-land, unusually well adapted for all the natural
products which the Hellenes deemed essential; while in the
background spread mysteriously the desert, a world passing the
comprehension of the Hellenes, out of which the Libyan tribes
came to the shore with horses and camels, with black slaves,
with apes, parrots and other wonderful animals, with dates and
rare fruits. ... An abundant spring of water above the shore
was the natural point at which the brown men of the deserts
and the mariners assembled. Here regular meetings became
customary. The bazaar became a permanent market, and the
market a city which arose on a grand scale, broad and lofty,
on two rocky heights, which jut out towards the sea from the
plateau of the desert. This city was called Cyrene. ... Large
numbers of population immigrated from Crete, the islands and
Peloponnesus. A large amount of new land was parcelled out,
the Libyans were driven back, the landing-place became the
port of Apollonia, and the territory occupied by the city
itself was largely extended. Cyrene became, like Massalia, the
starting point of a group of settlements, the centre of a
small Greece: Barca and Hesperides [afterwards called
Berenice] were her daughters. Gradually a nation grew up,
which extended itself and its agriculture, and contrived to
cover a large division of African land with Hellenic culture.
This was the new era which commenced for Cyrene with the reign
of the third king, the Battus who, on account of the
marvellously rapid rise of his kingdom, was celebrated as 'the
fortunate' in all Hellas. The Battiadæ [the family or dynasty
of Battus] were soon regarded as a great power."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.
{646}
Cyrenaica became subject to Egypt under the Ptolemys, and was
then usually called Pentapolis, from the five cities of
Cyrene, Apollonia, Arsinoë (formerly Teuchira), Berenice
(formerly Hesperis, or Hesperides) and Ptolemais (the port of
Barca). Later it became a province of the Roman Empire, and
finally, passing under Mahometan rule, sank to its present
state, as a district, called Barca, of the kingdom of
Tripoli.--Cyrene was especially famous for the production of a
plant called silphium--supposed to be assafœtida--on which
the ancients seem to have set an extraordinary value. This was
one of the principal sources of the wealth of Cyrene.--
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 8, section 1, and chapter 12, section 2.
CYRENAICA: B. C. 525.
Tributary to Persia.
See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
CYRENAICA: B. C. 322.
Absorbed in the Kingdom of Egypt by Ptolemy Lagus.
See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
CYRENAICA: B. C. 97.
Transferred to the Romans by will.
"In the middle of this reign [of Ptolemy, called Lathyrus,
king of Egypt] died Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene. He was the
half-brother of Lathyrus and Alexander, and having been made
king of Cyrene by his father Euergetes II., he had there
reigned quietly for twenty years. Being between Egypt and
Carthage, then called the Roman province of Africa, and having
no army which he could lead against the Roman legions, he had
placed himself under the guardianship of Rome; he had bought a
truce during his lifetime, by making the Roman people his
heirs in his will, so that on his death they were to have his
kingdom. Cyrene had been part of Egypt for above two hundred
years, and was usually governed by a younger son or brother of
the king. But on the death of Ptolemy Apion, the Roman senate,
who had latterly been grasping at everything within their
reach, claimed his kingdom as their inheritance, and in the
flattering language of their decree by which the country was
enslaved, they declared Cyrene free."
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 11.
CYRENAICA: A. D. 117.
Jewish insurrection.
See CYPRUS: A. D. 117.
CYRENAICA: A. D. 616.
Destroyed by Chosroes.
See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
CYRENAICA: 7th Century.
Mahometan conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
----------CYRENAICA: End----------
CYRUS, The empire of.
See PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
CYRUS THE YOUNGER,
The expedition of.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
CYZICUS: B. C. 411-410, Battles at.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
CYZICUS: B. C. 74.
Siege by Mithridates.
Cyzicus, which had then become one of the largest and
wealthiest cities of Asia Minor, was besieged for an entire
year (B. C. 74-73) by Mithridates in the Third Mithridatic
war. The Roman Consul Lucullus came to the relief of the city
and succeeded in gaining a position which blockaded the
besiegers and cut off their supplies. In the end, Mithridates
retreated with a small remnant only, of his great armament,
and never recovered from the disaster.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 1.
CYZICUS: A. D. 267.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
----------CYZICUS: End----------
CZAR, OR TZAR.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
CZARTORISKYS, The, and the fall of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
CZASLAU, OR CHOTUSITZ, Battle of (A. D. 1742).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).
CZEKHS, The.
See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.
----------CZEKHS, End----------
D.
DACHTELFIELD, The.
See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
DACIA, The Dacians.
Ancient Dacia embraced the district north of the Danube
between the Theiss and the Dneister. "The Dacians [at the time
of Augustus, in the last half century B. C.] occupied the
whole of what now forms the southern part of Hungary, the
Banat and Transylvania. ... The more prominent part which they
henceforth assumed in Roman history was probably owing
principally to the immediate proximity in which they now found
themselves to the Roman frontier. The question of the relation
in which the Dacians stood to the Getæ, whom we find in
possession of these same countries at an earlier period, was
one on which there existed considerable difference of opinion
among ancient writers: but the prevailing conclusion was that
they were only different names applied to the same people.
Even Strabo, who describes them as distinct, though cognate
tribes, states that they spoke the same language. According to
his distinction the Getæ occupied the more easterly regions,
adjoining the Euxine, and the Dacians the western, bordering
on the Germans."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1.
DACIA: A. D. 102-106.
Trajan's conquest.
At the beginning of the second century, when Trajan conquered
the Dacians and added their country to the Roman Empire, "they
may be considered as occupying the broad block of land bounded
by the Theiss, the Carpathians, the lower Danube or Ister, and
the Pruth." In his first campaign, A. D. 102, Trajan
penetrated the country to the heart of modern Transylvania,
and forced the Dacians to give him battle at a place called
Tapæ, the site of which is not known. He routed them with much
slaughter, as they had been routed at the same place, Tapæ,
sixteen years before, in one of the ineffectual campaigns
directed by Domitian. They submitted, and Trajan established
strong Roman posts in the country; but he had scarcely reached
Rome and celebrated his triumph there, before the Dacians were
again in arms. In the spring of the year 104, Trajan repaired
to the lower Danube in person, once more, and entered the
Dacian country with an overwhelming force. This time the
subjugation was complete, and the Romans established their
occupation of the country by the founding of colonies and the
building of roads.
{647}
Dacia was now made a Roman province, and "the language of the
Empire became, and to this day substantially remains, the
national tongue of the inhabitants. ... Of the Dacian
province, the last acquired and the first to be surrendered of
the Roman possessions, if we except some transient
occupations, soon to be commemorated, in the East, not many
traces now exist; but even these may suffice to mark the
moulding power of Roman civilization. ... The accents of the
Roman tongue still echo in the valleys of Hungary and
Wallachia; the descendants of the Dacians at the present day
repudiate the appellation of Wallachs, or strangers, and still
claim the name of Romúni."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 63.
DACIA: A. D. 270.
Given up to the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.
DACIA: 4th Century.
Conquest by the Huns.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376,
and HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
DACIA: 6th Century.
Occupied by the Avars.
See AVARS.
DACIA: Modern history.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
----------DACIA: End----------
DACOITS.
See DAKOITS.
DACOTAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
DÆGSASTAN, Battle of.
Fought, A. D. 603, between the Northumbrians and the Scots of
Dalriada, the army of the latter being almost wholly
destroyed.
DAGOBERT I.,
King of the Franks
(Neustria), A.. D. 628-638;
(Austrasia), 622--633:
(Burgundy), 628-638.
Dagobert II., King of the Franks
(Austrasia), A.. D. 673-678.
Dagobert III., King of the Franks
(Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 711-715.
DAHIS, The.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
DAHLGREN, Admiral John A.
Siege of Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY, and AUGUST-DECEMBER: S. CAROLINA).
DAHLGREN, Ulric.
Raid to Richmond.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
DAKOITS.--DAKOITEE.
The Dakoits of India, who were suppressed soon after the
Thugs, were "robbers by profession, and even by birth."
Dakoitee "was established upon a broad basis of hereditary
caste, and was for the most part an organic state of society.
'I have always followed the trade of my ancestors, Dakoitee.'
said Lukha, a noted Dakoit, who subsequently became approver.
'My ancestors held this profession before me,' said another,
'and we train boys in the same manner. In my caste if there
were any honest persons, i. e., not robbers, they would be
turned out.'" The hunting down of the Dakoits was begun in
1838, under the direction of Colonel Sleeman, who had already
hunted down the Thugs.
J. W. Kaye, The Administration of the East India Co.,
part 3, chapter 3.
DAKOTA, North and South: A. D. 1803.-
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
DAKOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
Partly joined, in succession, to Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Iowa Territories.
See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
Admission to the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
DAKOTAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
DALAI LAMA.
See LAMAS.
DALCASSIANS.
The people of North Munster figure prominently under that name
in early Irish history.
T. Moore, History of Ireland, volume 2.
DALHOUSIE, Lord, The India administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1848-1856; and 1852.
DALMATIA.
"The narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the Hadriatic
on which the name of Dalmatia has settled down has a history
which is strikingly analogous to its scenery. ... As the
cultivation and civilization of the land lies in patches, as
harbours and cities alternate with barren hills, so Dalmatia
has played a part in history only by fits and starts. This
fitful kind of history goes on from the days of Greek colonies
and Illyrian piracy to the last war between Italy and Austria.
But of continuous history, steadily influencing the course of
the world's progress, Dalmatia has none to show."
E. A. Freeman, Subject and Neighbour Lands of Venice,
pages 85-87.
ALSO IN:
T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
chapter 1-2.
See, also, ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS; SALONA;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
DALMATIA: 6th-7th Centuries:
Slavonic occupation.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES;
also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.
DALMATIA: A. D. 944.
Beginning of Venetian Conquest.
See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1102.
Conquest by the king of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972--1114.
DALMATIA: 14th Century.
Conquest from the Venetians by Louis the Great of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
DALMATIA: 16th Century.
The Uscocks.
See USCOCKS.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1694-1696.
Conquests by the Venetians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1699.
Cession in great part to Venice by the Turks.
See HUNGARY: 1683-1699.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1797.
Acquisition by Austria.
See, FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
DALMATIA: A. D. 1805.
Ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
DALMATIA: A. D. 1809.
Incorporated in the Illyrian Provinces of Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
DALMATIA: A. D. 1814.
Restored to Austria.
Austria recovered possession of Dalmatia under the
arrangements of the Congress of Vienna.
----------DALMATIA: End----------
DALRIADA.
"A district forming the northeast corner of Ireland and
comprising the north half of the county of Antrim, was called
Dalriada. It appears to have been one of the earliest
settlements of the Scots among the Picts of Ulster and to have
derived its name from its supposed founder Cairbre, surnamed
Righfhada or Riada. It lay exactly opposite the peninsula of
Kintyre [Scotland] from whence it was separated by a part of
the Irish channel of no greater breadth than about fourteen
miles; and from this Irish district the colony of Scots, which
was already Christian [fifth century] passed over and settled
in Kintyre and in the island of Isla"--establishing a Scotch
Dalriada.
W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 3.
For some account of the Scotch Dalriada,
See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
{648}
DAMASCUS, Kingdom of.
The kingdom of Damascus, or "Aram of Damascus" as it was
entitled, was formed soon after that Syrian region threw off
the yoke of dependence which David and Solomon had imposed
upon it. "Rezon, the outlaw, was its founder. Hader, or Hadad,
and Rimmon, were the chief divinities of the race, and from
them the line of its kings derived their names,--Hadad,
Ben-hadad, Hadad-ezer, Tabrimmon."
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of
the Jewish Church, lecture. 33.
"Though frequently captured and plundered in succeeding
centuries by Egypt and Assyria, neither of those nations was
able to hold it long in subjection because of the other. It
was probably a temporary repulse of the Assyrians, under
Shalmaneser II., by the Damascene general Naaman to which
reference is made in 2 Kings volume 1: 'by him the Lord had given
deliverance unto Syria.' ... After the great conquerors of
Egypt and Asia, each in his day, had captured and plundered
Damascus, it was taken without resistance by Parmenio for
Alexander the Great [B. C. 333]. In it Pompey spent the
proudest year of his life, 64 B. C., distributing at his
pleasure the thrones of the East to the vassals of Rome.
Cleopatra had received the city as a love-gift from Mark
Antony, and Tiberius had bestowed it upon Herod the Great,
before Aretas of Petra, the father of the princess whom Herod
Antipas divorced for Herodias' sake, and the ruler whose
officers watched the city to prevent the escape of Paul, made
it, we know not how, a part of his dominions."
W. B. Wright, Ancient Cities, chapter 7.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 634.
Conquest by the Arabs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 661.
Becomes the seat of the Caliphate.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 763.
The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 1148-1217.
Capital of the Atabeg and the Ayoubite sultans.
See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 1401.
Sack and massacre by Timour.
See Timour.
DAMASCUS: A. D. 1832.
Capture by Mehemed Ali.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
----------DAMASCUS: End----------
DAMASUS II., Pope, A. D. 1048, July to August.
DAMIETTA: A. D. 1219-1220.
Siege, capture and surrender by the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.
DAMIETTA: A. D. 1249-1250.
Capture and loss by Saint Louis.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
DAMIETTA: A. D. 1252.
Destruction by the Mamelukes.
"Two years after the deliverance of the king [Saint Louis],
and whilst he was still in Palestine, the Mamelukes, fearing a
fresh invasion of the Franks, in order to prevent their
enemies from taking Damietta and fortifying themselves in that
city, entirely destroyed it. Some years after, as their fears
were not yet removed, and the second crusade of Louis IX.
spread fresh alarms throughout the East, the Egyptians caused
immense heaps of stone to be cast into the mouth of the Nile,
in order that the Christian fleets might not be able to sail
up the river. Since that period a new Damietta has been built
at a small distance from the site of the former city."
J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 14.
DAMNONIA.
See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
DAMNONII, OR DAMNII, The.
See DUMNONII.
DAMOISEL.--DAMOISELLE.--DONZELLO.
"In mediæval Latin 'domicella' is used for the unmarried
daughter of a prince or noble, and 'domicellus,' contracted
from 'domnicellus,' the diminutive of 'dominus,' for the son.
These words are the forerunners of the old French 'dâmoisel'
in the masculine, and 'damoiselle' in the feminine gender.
Froissart calls Richard, prince of Wales, son of Edward: 'le
jeune damoisil Richart.' In Romance the word is indifferently
'damoisel' and' 'danzel,' in Italian 'donzello.' All of these
are evidently titles under the same notion as that of child
and 'enfant,' of which the idea belongs to the knights of an
earlier period."
R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciæ, page 328.
DANAIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.
DANCING PLAGUE.
See PLAGUE, A. D. 1374.
DANDRIDGE, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL:
TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI).
DANEGELD, The.
"A tax of two shillings on the hide of land, originally levied
as tribute to the Danes under Ethelred, but continued [even
under the Plantagenets], like the income tax, as a convenient
ordinary resource."
William Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, page 53.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
DANELAGH, OR DANELAGA, OR DANELAU.
The district in England held by the Danes after their treaty
with Alfred the Great, extending south to the Thames, the Lea
and the Ouse; north to the Tyne; west of the mountain district
of Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Cumberland. "Over all this
region the traces of their colonization abound in the villages
whose names end in by, the Scandinavian equivalent of the English
tun or ham."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 77.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
DANES AS VIKINGS.
See, also, NORMANS.--NORTHMEN.
DANES: In England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880, 979-1016,
and 1016-1042;
also NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
DANES: In Ireland.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
----------DANES: End----------
DANITES, The.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
DANTE AND THE FACTIONS OF FLORENCE.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.
DANTON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).
DANTZIC:
In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
DANTZIC: A. D. 1577.
Submission to the king of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
DANTZIC: A. D. 1793.
Acquisition by Prussia.
See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
DANTZIC: A. D. 1806-1807.
Siege and capture by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
DANTZIC: A. D. 1807.
Declared a Free state.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
DANTZIC: A. D. 1813.
Siege and capture by the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
{649}
DARA.
One of the capitals of the Parthian kings, the site of which
has not been identified.
DARA, Battle of (A. D. 529).
See PERSIA: A.. D. 226-627.
DARDANIANS OF THE TROAD.
See TROJA;
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
also, AMORITES.
DARIEN, The Isthmus of.
See PANAMA.
DARIEN: The Scottish colony.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
DARINI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC
INHABITANTS.
DARIUS,
King of Persia, B. C. 521-486.
Darius II., B. C. 425-405.
Darius III. (Codomannus), B. C. 336-331.
DARK AGES, The.
The historical period, so-called, is nearly identical with
that more commonly named the Middle Ages; but its duration may
be properly considered as less by a century or two. From the
5th to the 13th century is a definition of the period which
most historians would probably accept.
See MIDDLE AGES.
DARORIGUM.
Modern Vannes.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
DAR-UL-ISLAM AND DAR-UL-HARB.
"The Koran divides the world into two portions, the House of
Islam, Dar-ul-Islam, and the House of War, Dar-ul-harb. It has
generally been represented by Western writers on the
institutes of Mahometanism and on the habits of Mahometan
nations, that the Dar-ul-harb, the House of War, comprises all
lands of the misbelievers. ... There is even a widely-spread
idea among superficial talkers and writers that the holy
hostility, the Jehad [or Dhihad] of Mussulmans against
non-Mussulmans is not limited to warfare between nation and
nation; but that 'it is a part of the religion of every
Mahometan to kill as many Christians as possible, and that by
counting up a certain number killed, they think themselves
secure of heaven.' But careful historical investigators, and
statesmen long practically conversant with Mahometan
populations have exposed the fallacy of such charges against
those who hold the creed of Islam. ... A country which is
under Christian rulers, but in which Mahometans are allowed
free profession of their faith, and peaceable exercise of
their ritual, is not a portion of the House of War, of the
Dar-ul-harb; and there is no religious duty of warfare, no
Jehad, on the part of true Mussulmans against such a state.
This has been of late years formally determined by the chief
authorities in Mahometan law with respect to British India."
Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 6.
DASTAGERD.
The favorite residence of the last great Persian king and
conqueror, Chosroes (A. D. 590-628), was fixed at Dastagerd,
or Artemita, sixty miles north of Ctesiphon, and east of the
Tigris. His palaces and pleasure grounds were of extraordinary
magnificence.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
DASYUS.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
DAUPHINS OF FRANCE.--DAUPHINE.
In 1349, Philip VI., or Philip de Valois, of France, acquired
by purchase from Humbert II., count of Vienne, the sovereignty
of the province of Dauphine. This principality became from
that time the appanage of the eldest sons of the kings of
France and gave them their peculiar name or title of the
Dauphins. The title in question had been borne by the counts
of Vienne (in Dauphiné), "on account of the dolphin which they
carried upon their helmets and on their armorial bearings."
E. De Bonnechose, History of France,
book 2, chapter 2, footnote.
ALSO IN:
E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 9.
See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
DAVENPORT, John, and the founding of New Haven Colony.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638, and 1639.
DAVID, King of Israel and Judah.
See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND
JUDAH, and JERUSALEM: CONQUEST, &c.
DAVID I.,
King of Scotland, A. D. 1124-1153.
David II., 1329-1370.
DAVIS, Jefferson.
Election to the Presidency of the rebellious
"Confederate States."
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
Flight and capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
DAVOUT, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
1806-1807; 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
also RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
DAY OF BARRICADES, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
DAY OF DUPES, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
DAY OF THE SECTIONS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
DAYAKS, OR DYAKS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
DEAK, Francis, and the recovery of Hungarian nationality.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
DEAN FOREST.
The "Royal Forest of Dean," situated in the southwestern angle
of the county of Gloucester, England, between the Severn and
the Wye, is still so extensive that it covers some 23,000
acres, though much reduced from its original dimensions. Its
oaks and its iron mines have played important parts in British
history. The latter were worked by the Romans and still give
employment to a large number of miners. The former were
thought to be so essential to the naval power of England that
the destruction of the Forest is said to have been one of the
special duties prescribed to the Spanish Armada.
J. C. Brown, Forests of England.
DEANE, Silas, and the American transactions
with Beaumarchais in France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
DEARBORN, General Henry, and the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER),
(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
DEBRECZIN, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
DEBT, Laws concerning: Ancient Greek.
At Athens, in the time of Solon (6th century, B. C.) the
Thetes--"the cultivating tenants, metayers and small
proprietors of the country ... are exhibited as weighed down
by debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a
state of freedom into slavery--the whole mass of them (we are
told) being in debt to the rich, who were proprietors of the
greater part of the soil. They had either borrowed money for
their own necessities, or they tilled the lands of the rich as
dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of the produce,
and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.
{650}
All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law
of debtor and creditor--once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia,
and a large portion of the world--combined with the
recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the
right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another
man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was
liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he
could find means either of paying it or working it out; and
not only he himself, but his minor sons and unmarried
daughters and sisters also, whom the law gave him the power of
selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the security of his
body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon that
of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive
contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced
from freedom to slavery in Attica itself,--many others had
been sold for exportation,--and some had only hitherto
preserved their own freedom by selling their children. ... To
their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable
Seisachtheia, shaking off of burthens, was directed. The
relief which it afforded was complete and immediate. It
cancelled at once all those contracts in which the debtor had
borrowed on the security either of his person or of his land:
it forbade all future loans or contracts in which the person
of the debtor was pledged as security: it deprived the
creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or
extort work from, his debtor, and confined him to an effective
judgment at law authorizing the seizure of the property of the
latter. It swept off all the numerous mortgage pillars from
the landed properties in Attica, leaving the land free from
all past claims. It liberated and restored to their full
rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal
adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know
how) of re-purchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a
renewed life of liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had
been sold for exportation. And while Solon forbad every
Athenian to pledge or sell his own person into slavery, he
took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding him to
pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister
under his tutelage--excepting only the case in which either of
the latter might be detected in unchastity. ... One thing is
never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined with
the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law--it
settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again
do we hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing
Athenian tranquility. The general sentiment which grew up at
Athens, under the Solonian money-law and under the
democratical government, was one of high respect for the
sanctity of contracts. ... There can be little doubt that
under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to seize
the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the
person, the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial
character."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 11 (volume 3).
DEBT: Ancient Roman.
"The hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. The
obligation of a debt was a tying up or binding, or bondage, of
the person: the payment was a solution, a loosing or release
of the person from that bondage. The property of the debtor
was not a pledge for the debt. It could be made so by special
agreement, though in the earliest law only by transferring it
at once to the ownership of the creditor. Without such special
agreement, the creditor whose debtor failed to pay could not
touch his property. Even when the debtor had been prosecuted
and condemned to pay, if he still failed, the creditor could
not touch his property. He could seize his person--I speak
now of the early law, in the first centuries of the
republic--and after holding him in rigorous confinement for
sixty days, with opportunities, however, either to pay himself
or get somebody to pay for him, if payment still failed, he
could sell him as a slave, or put him to death; if there were
several creditors, they could cut his body into pieces and
divide it among them. This extreme severity was afterward
softened; but the principle remained long unchanged, that the
hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. If the
debtor obstinately and to the last refused to surrender his
property, the creditor could not touch it."
J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 10.
"During the first half of the Samnite war [B. C. 326-304], but
in what year is uncertain, there was passed that famous law
which prohibited personal slavery for debt. No creditor might
for the future attach the person of his debtor, but he might
only seize his property; and all those whose personal freedom
was pledged for their debts (nexi), were released from their
liability, if they could swear that they had property enough
to meet their creditor's demands. It does not appear that this
great alteration in the law was the work of any tribune, or
that it arose out of any general or deliberate desire to
soften the severity of the ancient practice. It was
occasioned, we are told, by one scandalous instance of abuse
of power on the part of a creditor. ... But although personal
slavery for debt was thus done away with, yet the consequences
of insolvency were much more serious at Rome than they are in
modern Europe. He whose property had once been made over to
his creditors by the prætor's sentence, became, ipso facto,
infamous; he lost his tribe, and with it all his political
rights; and the forfeiture was irrevocable, even though he
might afterwards pay his debts to the full; nor was it even in
the power of the censors to replace him on the roll of
citizens. So sacred a thing did credit appear in the eyes of
the Romans."
T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 32 (volume 2).
DEBT: In England.
"Debt has been regarded as a crime by primitive society in
every part of the world. In Palestine, as in Rome, the
creditor had power over the person of the debtor, and
misfortune was commonly treated with a severity which was not
always awarded to crime."
[Leviticus 12 xxv., 39-41, and 2 Kings iv., 1]
{651}
"In this country [England] the same system was gradually
introduced in Plantagenet times. The creditor, who had been
previously entitled to seize the goods, or even the land of
the debtor, was at last authorised to seize his person. In one
sense, indeed, the English law was, in this respect, more
irrational than the cruel code of the Jews, or the awful
punishment [death and dismemberment or slavery--Gibbon, chapter
44] which the law of the Twelve Tables reserved for debtors.
In Palestine the creditor was, at least, entitled to the
service of the debtor or of his children, and the slave had
the prospect of an Insolvent Debtor's Relief Act in the
Sabbatical year. Even the law of the Twelve Tables allowed the
creditors to sell the debtor into slavery, instead of
resorting to the horrible alternative of partitioning his
body. But in England the creditors had no such choice. They
had nothing to do but to throw the debtor into prison; and by
his imprisonment deprive themselves of the only chance of his
earning money to pay their debts. A law of this kind was
intolerable to a commercial people. The debtor languished in
gaol, the creditor failed to obtain payment of his debt. When
trade increased in Tudor times, the wits of legislators were
exercised in devising some expedient for satisfying the
creditor without imprisoning the debtor. The Chancellor was
authorised to appoint commissioners empowered to divide the
debtor's property among the creditors. By an Act of Anne the
debtor who complied with the law was released from further
liability, and was practically enabled to commence life anew.
In 1826, a debtor was allowed to procure his own bankruptcy;
while in 1831, commissioners were appointed to carry out the
arrangements which had been previously conducted under the
Court of Chancery. The law of bankruptcy which was thus
gradually developed by the legislation of three centuries only
applied to persons in trade. No one who was not a trader could
become a bankrupt; the ordinary debtor became as a matter of
course an insolvent, and passed under the insolvent laws. The
statutes, moreover, omitted to give any very plain definition
of a trader. The distinction between trader and non-trader
which had been gradually drawn by the Courts was not based on
any very clear principle. A person who made bricks on his own
estate of his own clay was not a trader; but a person who
bought the clay and then made the bricks was a trader.
Farmers, again, were exempt from the bankruptcy law; but
farmers who purchased cattle for sale at a profit were liable
to it. The possibility, moreover, of a trader being made a
bankrupt depended on the size of his business. A petitioning
creditor in bankruptcy was required to be a person to whom at
least £100 was due; if two persons petitioned, their debts
were required to amount to £150; if more than two persons
petitioned, to £200. A small shopkeeper, therefore, who could
not hope to obtain credit for £200, £150, or £100, could not
become a bankrupt; he was forced to become an insolvent. The
treatment of the insolvent was wholly different from that of
the bankrupt. The bankruptcy law was founded on the principle
that the goods and not the person of the debtor should be
liable for the debt; the insolvency law enabled the person of
the debtor to be seized, but provided no machinery for
obtaining his goods. ... Up to 1838 the first step in
insolvency was the arrest of the debtor. Any person who made a
deposition on oath that some other person was in debt to him,
could obtain his arrest on what was known as 'mesne process.'
The oath might possibly be untrue; the debt might not be due;
the warrant issued on the sworn deposition as a matter of
course. But, in addition to the imprisonment on mesne process,
the insolvent could be imprisoned for a further period on what
was known as 'final process.' Imprisonment on mesne process
was the course which the creditor took to prevent the flight
of the debtor; imprisonment on final process was the
punishment which the Court awarded to the crime of debt. Such
a system would have been bad enough if the debtors' prisons
had been well managed. The actual condition of these prisons
almost exceeds belief. Dickens, indeed, has made the story of
a debtor's imprisonment in the Marshalsea familiar to a world
of readers. ... The Act of 1813 had done something to mitigate
the misery which the law occasioned. The Court which was
constituted by it released 50,000 debtors in 13 years. But
large numbers of persons were still detained in prison for
debt. In 1827 nearly 6,000 persons were committed in London
alone for debt. The Common Law Commissioners, reporting in
1830, declared that the loud and general complaints of the law
of insolvency were well founded; and Cottenham, in 1838,
introduced a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in all
cases. The Lords were not prepared for so complete a remedy;
they declined to abolish imprisonment on final process, or to
exempt from imprisonment on mesne process, persons who owed
more than £20, and who were about to leave the country.
Cottenham, disappointed at these amendments, decided on
strengthening his own hands by instituting a fresh inquiry. He
appointed a commission in 1839, which reported in 1840, and
which recommended the abolition of imprisonment on final
process, and the union of bankruptcy and insolvency. In 1841,
in 1842, in 1843, and in 1844 Cottenham introduced bills to
carry out this report. The bills of 1841, 1842, and 1843 were
lost. The bill of 1844 was not much more successful. Brougham
declared that debtors who refused to disclose their property,
who refused to answer questions about it, who refused to give
it up, or who fraudulently made away with it, as well as
debtors who had been guilty of gross extravagance, deserved
imprisonment. He introduced an alternative bill giving the
Court discretionary power to imprison them. The Lords,
bewildered by the contrary counsels of two such great lawyers
as Cottenham and Brougham, decided on referring both bills to
one Select Committee. The Committee preferred Brougham's bill,
amended it, and returned it to the House. This bill became
ultimately law. It enabled both private debtors and traders
whose debts amounted to less than the sums named in the
Bankruptcy Acts to become bankrupts; and it abolished
Imprisonment in all cases where the debt did not exceed £20."
S. Walpole, History of England from 1815,
chapter 17 (volume 4).
DEBT: In the United States.
"In New York, by the act of April 26, 1831, c. 300, and which
went into operation on March 1st, 1832, arrest and
imprisonment on civil process at law, and on execution in
equity founded upon contract, were abolished. The provision
under the act was not to apply to any person who should have
been a non-resident of the state for a month preceding (and
even this exception was abolished by the act of April 25th,
1840); nor to proceedings as for a contempt to enforce civil
remedies; nor to actions for fines and penalties; nor to suits
founded in torts ... nor on promises to marry; or for moneys
collected by any public officer; or for misconduct or neglect
in office, or in any professional employment.
{652}
The plaintiff, however, in any suit, or upon any judgment or
decree, may apply to a judge for a warrant to arrest the
defendant, upon affidavit stating a debt or demand due, to
more than $50; and that the defendant is about to remove
property out of the jurisdiction of the court, with intent to
defraud his creditors; or that he has property or rights in
action which he fraudulently conceals; or public or corporate
stock, money, or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refuses
to apply to the payment of the judgment or decree in favor of
the plaintiff; or that he has assigned, or is about to assign
or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud his
creditors; or has fraudulently contracted the debt, or
incurred the obligation respecting which the suit is brought.
If the judge shall be satisfied, on due examination, of the
truth of the charge, he is to commit the debtor to jail,
unless he complies with certain prescribed conditions or some
one of them, and which are calculated for the security of the
plaintiff's claim. Nor is any execution against the body to be
issued on justices' judgments, except in cases essentially the
same with those above stated. ... By the New York act of 1846,
c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions
for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in
actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it
applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The
legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially
abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof
that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the
constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental
principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison
after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed
by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In
February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women
from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as
to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil
actions founded upon contract. ... Females were first exempted
from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and
imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now
abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in
Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January,
1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the
debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and
that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart
without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force,
fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was
carried into effect by the act of the legislature of
Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish
imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In
New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for
debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23,
1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract
and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont,
imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January,
1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be
evidence that they are about to abscond with their property;
so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of
torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent
disposition of property."
J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law;
edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr., volume 2 (foot-note).
"In many states the Constitution provides
(A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt:
Indiana. C. 1, 22;
Minnesota. C. I, 12;
Kansas. C. B. Rts. 16;
Maryland. C. 3, 38;
North Carolina. C. 1, 16;
Missouri. C. 2. 16;
Texas. C. 1, 18;
Oregon. C. 1, 19;
Nevada. C. 1, 14;
South Carolina. C. 1, 20;
Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21;
Alabama. C. 1, 21;
Mississippi. C. 1, 11;
Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.
(B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt
(1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states:
Ohio. C. 1, 15;
Iowa. C. 1, 19;
Nebraska. C. 1, 20;
Tennessee. C. 1, 18;
Arkansas. C. 2, 16;
California. C. 1, 15;
Oregon. C. 1, 15;
Arizona. B. Uts. 18.
(2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in
three states:
New Jersey. C. 1, 17;
Michigan. C. 6, 33;
Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.
(C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt
in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for
the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law;
Vermont. C. 2, 33;
Rhode Island. C. 1, 11;
Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16;
Illinois. C. 2, 12;
Kentucky. C. 13, 19;
Colorado. C. 2, 12.
... But the above principles are subject to the following
exceptions in the several states respectively:
(1) a debtor may be imprisoned in criminal actions: Tennessee.
So (2) for the non-payment of fines or penalties imposed by
law: Missouri.
So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud:
Vermont,
Rhode Island,
New Jersey,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
Indiana,
Illinois,
Michigan,
Iowa,
Minnesota,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
North Carolina,
Kentucky,
Arkansas,
California,
Oregon,
Nevada,
Colorado,
South Carolina,
Florida,
Arizona.
And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the
punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor
concealed from his creditors:
Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6;
Louisiana. C. 223.
So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon.
Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada.
(6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado.
(7) In cases of malicious mischief: California.
(8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona.
(9) Or of moneys collected by public officers,
or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."
F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law:
Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public
Statutes of all the States and Territories relating
to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886,
art. 8.
----------DEBT: End----------
DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
The new republican calendar.
DECAMISADOS, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
DECATUR, Commodore Stephen.
Burning of the "Philadelphia."
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.
In the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813; 1814.
DECCAN, The.
See INDIA: THE NAME;
and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
DECELIAN WAR, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
DECEMVIRS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
DECIUS: Roman Emperor. A. D. 249-251.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (American).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE),
and (JULY);
also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.
{653}
DECLARATION OF PARIS, The.
"At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the
conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was
signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the
powers represented there, which contained four articles:
'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The
neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of
contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband
of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.
Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective--that is
to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent
access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other
powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in
signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The
objection on the part of the United States was stated in a
circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who
"maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as
incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents;
and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to
increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and
France, without even benefiting the general cause of
civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of
capturing private property, the United States, which had at
that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small
navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. ... The
President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the
first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress
of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property
of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas
shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the
other belligerent, except it be contraband.' ... Among the
minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a
general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but
England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently
withdrawn. "Events ... have shown that ... our refusal to
accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer
to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the
'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private
property on the seas.'"
E. Schuyler. American Diplomacy, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
F. Wharton, Digest of the International law of the United
States, chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3).
H. Adams, Historical Essays, chapter 6.
See, also, PRIVATEERS.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN,
French Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
DECLARATORY ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
DECRETA, Roman imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
DECRETALS, The False.
See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
DECUMÆ.
See VECTIGAL.
DECUMATES LAND.
See AGRI DECUMATES,
also ALEMANNI;
and SUEVI.
DECURIONES.
See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.
DEDITITIUS.--COLONUS.--SERVUS.
"The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at
the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could
not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land,
hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that
land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of
receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called
the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom
he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not
yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an
end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible
for his land. ... On his death his sons, who had utterly lost
their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves
confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without
resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that
they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the
great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers,
half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient
accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the
middle ages. ... Before long they became mere slaves (Servi)
without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."
T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 1, chapter 10.
With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase
in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by
Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was
not a district without them), the small proprietors could no
longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class,
wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others
crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others
voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the
land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or
coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class
was formed and increased. ... After a successful war these
serfs were given ... to landed proprietors without payment;
and in this way not only was the class of free peasants
diminished or altogether destroyed--a happier result--the
slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were
not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves,
and in several imperial constitutions they are caned
'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold
property. ... On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves
in that they were liable to personal punishment. ... A colonus
was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit
of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor
could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of
selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was
compelled to sell the coloni along with it. ... The position
of these villeins was a very miserable one. ... These coloni
in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants
still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than
their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves
over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called
Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly;
and under this name recur often in the course of the next
century both in Gaul and Spain."
W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial
Administration, ch.4.
DEEMSTERS.
See MANX KINGDOM, THE.
DEFENDERS.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1784.
DEFENESTRATION AT PRAGUE, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.
DEFTERDARS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
DEICOLÆ, The.
See CULDEES.
DEIRA, The kingdom of.
One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called
the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it.
Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of
it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
{654}
DEKARCHIES.
See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
DEKELEIA.--DEKELEIAN WAR.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
DELATION.--DELATORS.
Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous
class of men who bore a certain resemblance--with significant
contrasts likewise--to the sycophants of Athens. They were
known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The
delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal
officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the
state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the
title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their
fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of
law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards
to the information given against transgressors of his marriage
laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and
suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest
encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of
Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were
one and the same person. There was no public accuser, ... but
the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to
demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity
of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of
prosecution was thus removed from the government to the
private delator."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 44.
See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.
DELAWARE BAY: A. D. 1609.
Discovered by Henry Hudson.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
DELAWARE BAY:
The error perpetuated in its name.
"Almost every writer on American history that I have met with
appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped
error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage
to Virginia in 1610.' ... Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter
of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to
Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his
approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the
American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land
to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The
first European who is really known to have entered the bay,
after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. ... The
name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to
the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."
J. R. Brodhead,
History of the State of New York, volume 1, appendix, note D.
----------DELAWARE BAY: End----------
DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
The Dutch occupancy and first settlement.
The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by
the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's
discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding
the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part
of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon
ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New
Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and
Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber,
bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to
the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of
an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort
Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his
council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and
comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that
state. ... A company was soon formed to colonize the tract
acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in
Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a
company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the
historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries,
were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship
of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with
emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements,
embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of
Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for
a whale fishery on the coast. ... Early in the spring of 1631,
the ... vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape
Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty
souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to
Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with
palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the
country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of
Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state.
That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this
colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to
complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied
Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of
Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian
chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on
the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this
sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at
Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of
Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command
of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the
destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset,
the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and
the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of
the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found
only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed
by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."
G. Bancroft, History of the United States,
part 2, chapter 13 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 7.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1632.
Embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
The planting of the Swedish colony.
"William Usselinx, a distinguished merchant in Stockholm, was
the first to propose to the Swedish government a scheme for
planting a colony in America. He was a native of Antwerp, and
had resided in Spain, Portugal and the Azores, at a time when
the spirit of foreign adventure pervaded every class of
society. ... In the year 1624 he proposed to the Swedish
monarch, Gustavus Adolphus, a plan for the organization of a
trading company, to extend its operations to Asia, Africa,
America and Terra Magellanica. ...
{655}
Whether Usselinx had ever been in America is uncertain, but he
had, soon after the organization of the Dutch West India
Company, some connection with it, and by this and other means
was able to give ample information in relation to the country
bordering on the Delaware, its soil, climate, and productions.
... His plan and contract were translated into the Swedish
language by Schrader, the royal interpreter, and published to
the nation, with an address strongly appealing both to their
piety and their love of gain. The king recommended it to the
States, and an edict dated at Stockholm, July 2d, 1626, was
issued by royal authority, in which people of all ranks were
invited to encourage the project and support the Company.
Books were opened for subscription to the stock ... and
Gustavus pledged the royal treasure for its support to the
amount of 400,000 dollars. ... The work was ripe for
execution, when the German war [the Thirty Years War], and
afterwards the king's death, prevented it, and rendered the
fair prospect fruitless. ... The next attempt on the part of
the Swedes to plant a colony in America was more successful.
But there has been much difference among historians in
relation to the period when that settlement was made. ... It
is owing to the preservation, among the Dutch records at
Albany, of an official protest issued by Kieft, the Governor
at New Amsterdam, that we do certainly know the Swedes were
here in the spring of 1638. Peter Minuit, who conducted to our
shore the first Swedish colony, had been Commercial Agent, and
Director General of the Dutch West India Company, and Governor
of the New Netherlands. ... At this time Christina, the infant
daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had ascended the throne of
Sweden. ... Under the direction of Oxenstiern, the celebrated
chancellor of Sweden, whose wisdom and virtue have shed a
glory on the age in which he lived, the patent which had been
granted in the reign of Gustavus to the company formed under
the influence of Usselinx was renewed, and its privileges
extended to the citizens of Germany. Minuit, being now out of
employment, and probably deeming himself injured by the
conduct of the Dutch Company [which had displaced him from the
governorship of the New Netherlands, through the influence of
the patroons, and appointed Wouter Van Twiller, a clerk, to
succeed him], had determined to offer his services to the
crown of Sweden. ... Minuit laid before the chancellor a plan
of procedure, urged a settlement on the Delaware, and offered
to conduct the enterprise. Oxenstiern represented the case to
the queen ... and Minuit was commissioned to command and
direct the expedition."
B. Ferris, History of the Original Settlements on the
Delaware, part 1, chapter 2-3.
"With two ships laden with provisions and other supplies
requisite for the settlement of emigrants in a new country,
and with fifty colonists, Minuit sailed from Sweden late in
1637, and entered Delaware Bay in April, 1638. He found the
country as he had left it, without white inhabitants. Minqua
Kill, now Wilmington, was selected as the place for the first
settlement, where he bought a few acres of land of the
natives, landed his colonists and stores, erected a fort, and
began a small plantation. He had conducted his enterprise with
some secrecy, that he might avoid collision with the Dutch;
but the watchful eyes of their agents soon discovered him, and
reported his presence to the director at New Amsterdam. Kieft
[successor to Van Twiller] had just arrived, and it became one
of his first duties to notify a man who had preceded him in
office that he was a trespasser and warn him off. Minuit,
knowing that Kieft was powerless to enforce his protest, being
without troops or money, paid no attention to his missive, and
kept on with his work. ... He erected a fort of considerable
strength, named Christina, for the Swedish queen, and
garrisoned it with 24 soldiers. Understanding the character of
the Indians, he conciliated their sachems by liberal presents
and secured the trade. In a few months he was enabled to load
his ships with peltries and despatch them to his patrons. ...
The colony had to all appearance a promising future. ...
Within two years, however, their prospects were clouded. The
Company had failed to send out another ship with supplies and
merchandise for the Indian trade. Provisions failed, trade
fell off, and sickness began to prevail. ... They resolved to
remove to Manhattan, where they could at least have 'enough to
eat.' On the eve of 'breaking up' to carry their resolution
into effect, succor came from an unexpected quarter. The fame
of New Sweden, as the colony was called, of its fertile lands
and profitable trade, had reached other nations of Europe. In
Holland itself a company was formed to establish a settlement
under the patronage of the Swedish Company." This Dutch
company "freighted a ship with colonists and supplies, which
fortunately arrived when the Swedish colony was about to be
broken up and the country abandoned. The spirits of the Swedes
were revived. ... Their projected removal was indefinitely
deferred and they continued their work with fresh vigor. The
Dutch colonists were located in a settlement by themselves,
only a few miles from Fort Christina. They were loyal to the
Swedes. ... In the autumn of the same year, 1640, Peter
Hollaendare, who had been appointed deputy governor of the
colony, and Moens Kling, arrived from Sweden with three ships
laden with provisions and merchandise for the straitened
colonists. They also brought out a considerable company of new
emigrants. New Sweden was now well established and prosperous.
More lands were bought, and new settlements were made. Peter
Minuit died the following year."
G. W. Schuyler, Colonial New York, volume 1,
introduction, section 2.
ALSO IN:
I. Acrelius, History of New Sweden
(Penn. Historical Society Mem., volume 11) chapter 1.
Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 12.
G. B. Keen, New Sweden (Narrative and Critical
History of America, volume 4, chapter 9).
J. F. Jameson, Willem Usselinx (Papers of the
American Historical Association., volume 2, number 3).
DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1643.
Intrusions of the English from New Haven.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
DELAWARE. A. D. 1640-1656.
The struggle between the Swedes and the Dutch and the final
victory of the latter.
"The [Swedish] colony grew to such importance that John
Printz, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry, was sent out in 1642
as governor, with orders for developing industry and trade. He
took pains to command the mouth of the river, although the
Dutch had established Fort Nassau on its eastern bank, and the
Swedish settlements were on the western bank exclusively.
{656}
Collisions arose between the Dutch and the Swedes, and when
the former put up the arms of the States General on the
completion of a purchase of lands from the Indians, Printz in
a passion ordered them to be torn down. The Swedes gained in
strength while the Dutch lost ground in the vicinity. In 1648
the Dutch attempted to build a trading post on the Schuylkill,
when they were repulsed by force by the Swedes. Individuals
seeking to erect houses were treated in the same way. The
Swedes in turn set up a stockade on the disputed ground.
Director Stuyvesant found it necessary in 1651 to go to confer
with Printz with a view to holding the country against the
aggressive English. The Indians were called into council and
confirmed the Dutch title, allowing the Swedes little more
than the site of Fort Christina. Fort Casimir was erected
lower down the river, to protect Dutch interests. The two
rulers agreed to be friends and allies, and so continued for
three years. The distress of the Swedish colony led to appeals
for aid from the home country whither Governor Printz had
returned. In 1654 help was given, and a new governor, John
Claude Rysingh, marked his coming by the capture of Fort
Casimir, pretending that the Dutch West India Company
authorized the act. The only revenge the Dutch could take was
the seizure of a Swedish vessel which by mistake ran into
Manhattan Bay. But the next year orders came from Holland
exposing the fraud of Rysingh, and directing the expulsion of
the Swedes from the South River. A fleet was organized and
Director Stuyvesant recovered Fort Casimir without firing a
gun. After some parley Fort Christina was also surrendered.
Such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance to the
Dutch authorities were sent to the home country. Only twenty
persons accepted the oath, and of three clergymen two were
expelled, and the third escaped like treatment by the sudden
outbreak of Indian troubles. In 1656 the States General and
Sweden made these transactions [a] matter of international
discussion. The Swedes presented a protest against the action
of the Dutch, and it was talked over, but the matter was
finally dropped. In the same year the West India Company sold
its interests on the South River to the city of Amsterdam, and
the colony of New Amstel was erected, so that the authority of
New Netherland was extinguished."
E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 1, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
E. Armstrong, Introduction to the Record of Upland
(Historical Society of Pennsylvania Memoirs, volume 7).
B. Ferris, History of the Original Settlements on the
Delaware, part 1, chapter 6-7.
S. Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, pages 62-228.
Report of the Amsterdam Chamber of the W. I. Co.
(Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 1, pages 587-646).
DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.
Conquest by the English, and annexation to New York.
"Five days after the capitulation of New Amsterdam
[surrendered by the Dutch to the English, Aug. 29, 1664 see
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664] Nicolls, with Cartwright and Maverick
... commissioned their colleague, Sir Robert Carr, to go,"
with three ships and an adequate military force, "and reduce
the Delaware settlements. Carr was instructed to promise the
Dutch the possession of all their property and all their
present privileges, 'only that they change their masters.' To
the Swedes he was to 'remonstrate their happy return under a
monarchical government, and his majesty's good inclination to
that nation.' To Lord Baltimore's officers in Maryland, he was
to declare that their proprietor's pretended right to the
Delaware being 'a doubtful case,' possession would be kept for
the king 'till his majesty is informed and satisfied
otherwise.' ... The Swedes were soon made friends," but the
Dutch attempted [October] some resistance, and yielded only
after a couple of broadsides from the ships had killed three
and wounded ten of their garrison. "Carr now landed ... and
claimed the pillage for himself as 'won by the sword.'
Assuming an authority independent of Nicolls, he claimed to be
the 'sole and chief commander and disposer' of all affairs on
the Delaware." His acts of rapacity and violence, when
reported to his fellow commissioners, at New York, were
condemned and repudiated, and Nicolls, the presiding
commissioner, went to the Delaware in person to displace him.
"Carr was severely rebuked, and obliged to give up much of his
ill-gotten spoil. Nevertheless, he could not be persuaded to
leave the place for some time. The name of New Amstel was now
changed to New Castle, and an infantry garrison established
there. ... Captain John Carr was appointed commander of the
Delaware, in subordination to the government of New York, to
which it was annexed 'as an appendage'; and thus affairs
remained for several years."
J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,
volume 2, chapter 2.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1673.
The Dutch reconquest.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1674.
Final recovery by the English.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1674-1760.
In dispute between the Duke of York and the
Proprietary of Maryland.
Grant by the Duke to William Penn:
See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1682; 1685; and 1760-1767.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.
The practical independence of Penn's "lower counties" acquired.
"In April, 1691, with the reluctant consent of William Penn,
the 'territories,' or 'lower counties,' now known as the State
of Delaware, became for two years a government by themselves
under Markham. ... The disturbance by Keith [see PENNSYLVANIA;
A. D. 1692-1696] creating questions as to the administration
of justice, confirmed the disposition of the English
government to subject Pennsylvania to a royal commission; and
in April 1693, Benjamin Fletcher, appointed governor by
William and Mary, once more united Delaware to Pennsylvania."
But Penn, restored to his authority in 1694, could not resist
the jealousies which tended so strongly to divide the Delaware
territories from Pennsylvania proper. "In 1702, Pennsylvania
convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were
never again united. The lower counties became almost an
independent republic; for, as they were not included in the
charter, the authority of the proprietary over them was by
sufferance only, and the executive power intrusted to the
governor of Pennsylvania was too feeble to restrain the power
of their people. The legislature, the tribunals, the
subordinate executive officers of Delaware knew little of
external control."
G. Bancroft, History of the United States.
(author's last revision), part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).
The question of jurisdiction over Delaware was involved
throughout in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries
of Pennsylvania and Maryland.
See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1685; and 1760-1767.
{657}
DELAWARE: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1766-1774
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767 to 1774;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768 to 1773.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the war of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action taken on the news.
Ticonderoga.
The siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1776.
Further introduction of slaves prohibited.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1776-1808.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1777-1779.
Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1787.
The adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.
DELAWARE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Refusal of troops on the call of President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
----------DELAWARE: End----------
DELAWARE RIVER,
Washington's passage of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
DELAWARES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.
DELFT: Assassination of the Prince of Orange (1584).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
DELHI: 11th Century.
Capture by Mahmoud of Gazna.
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
DELHI: A. D. 1192-1290.
The capital of the Mameluke or Slave dynasty.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
DELHI: A. D. 1399.
Sack and massacre by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
DELHI: A. D. 1526-1605.
The founding of the Mogul Empire by Babar and Akbar.
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
DELHI: A. D. 1739.
Sack and massacre by Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
DELHI: A. D. 1760-1761.
Taken and plundered by the Mahrattas.
Then by the Afghans.
Collapse of the Mogul Empire.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
DELHI: A. D. 1857.
The Sepoy Mutiny.
Massacre of Europeans.
Explosion of the magazine.
English siege and capture of the city.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST)
and (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
----------DELHI: End----------
DELIAN CONFEDERACY.
See GREECE: B. C. 478--477;
and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.
DELIAN FESTIVAL.
See DELOS.
DELIUM, Battle of (B. C. 424).
A serious defeat suffered by the Athenians in the
Peloponnesian War, B. C. 424, at the hands of the Thebans and
other Bœotians. It was consequent upon the seizure by the
Athenians of the Bœotian temple of Delium--a temple of
Apollo--on the sea-coast, about five miles from Tanagra, which
they fortified and intended to hold. After the defeat of the
army which was returning from this exploit, the garrison left
at Delium was besieged and mostly captured. Among the hoplites
who fought at Delium was the philosopher Socrates. The
commander Hippocrates was slain.
Thucydides, History, book 4, section 89-100.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 53.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
DELOS.
Delos, the smallest island of the group called the Cyclades,
but the most important in the eyes of the Ionian Greeks, being
their sacred isle, the fabled birthplace of Apollo and long
the chief seat and center of his worship. "The Homeric Hymn to
Apollo presents to us the island of Delos as the centre of a
great periodical festival in honour of Apollo, celebrated by
all the cities, insular and continental, of the Ionic name.
What the date of this hymn is, we have no means of
determining: Thucydides quotes it, without hesitation, as the
production of Homer, and, doubtless, it was in his time
universally accepted as such,--though modern critics concur in
regarding both that and the other hymns as much later than the
Iliad and Odyssey. It cannot probably be later than 600 B. C.
The description of the Ionic visitors presented to us in this
hymn is splendid and imposing; the number of their ships, the
display of their finery, the beauty of their women, the
athletic exhibitions as well as the matches of song and
dance,--all these are represented as making an ineffaceable
impression on the spectator: 'the assembled Ionians look as if
they were beyond the reach of old age or death.' Such was the
magnificence of which Delos was the periodical theatre, and
which called forth the voices and poetical genius not merely
of itinerant bards, but also of the Delian maidens in the
temple of Apollo, during the century preceding 560 B. C. At
that time it was the great central festival of the Ionians in
Asia and Europe."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 12.
During the war with Persia, Delos was made the common treasury
of the Greeks; but Athens subsequently took the custody and
management of the treasury to herself and reduced Delos to a
dependency. The island was long the seat of an extensive
commerce, and Delian bronze was of note in the arts.
DELOS: B. C. 490.
Spared by the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 490.
DELOS: B. C. 477.
The Delian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.
DELOS: B. C. 461-454 (?).
Removal of the Confederate treasury to Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
DELOS: B. C. 425-422.
Purifications.
"In the midst of the losses and turmoil of the [Peloponnesian]
war it had been determined [at Athens] to offer a solemn
testimony of homage to Apollo on Delos, [B. C. 425]--a homage
doubtless connected with the complete cessation of the
pestilence, which had lasted as long as the fifth year of the
war. The solemnity consisted in the renewed consecration of
the entire island to the divine Giver of grace; all the
coffins containing human remains being removed from Delos, and
Rhenea appointed to be henceforth the sole burial-place. This
solemnity supplemented the act formerly performed by the
orders of Pisistratus, and it was doubtless in the present
instance also intended, by means of a brilliant renewal of the
Delian celebration, to strengthen the power of Athens in the
island sea, to give a festive centre to the Ionic world. ...
But the main purpose was clearly one of morality and religion.
It was intended to calm and edify the minds of the citizens."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2.
{658}
Three years later (B. C. 422) the Athenians found some reason
for another purification of Delos which was more radical,
consisting in the expulsion of all the inhabitants from the
island. The unfortunate Delians found an asylum at Adramyttium
in Asia, until they were restored to their homes next year,
through the influence of the Delphic oracle.
Thucydides, History, book 5, section 1.
DELOS: B. C. 88.
Pontic Massacre.
Early in the first war of Mithridates with the Romans (B. C.
88), Delos, which had been made a free port and had become the
emporium of Roman commerce in the east, was seized by a Pontic
fleet, and pillaged, 20,000 Italians being massacred on the
island. The treasures of Delos were sent to Athens and the
island restored to the Athenian control.
W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 17.
DELOS: B. C. 69.
Ravaged by Pirates.
"Almost under the eyes of the fleet of Lucullus, the pirate
Athenodorus surprised in 685 [B. C. 69] the island of Delos,
destroyed its far-famed shrines and temples, and carried off
the whole population into slavery."
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 2.
DELOS: Slave Trade-under the Romans.
"Thrace and Sarmatia were the Guinea Coast of the Romans. The
entrepôt of this trade was Delos, which had been made a free
port by Rome after the conquest of Macedonia. Strabo tells us
that in one day 10,000 slaves were sold there in open market.
Such were the vile uses to which was put the Sacred Island,
once the treasury of Greece."
H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 48.
----------DELOS: End----------
DELPHI.--KRISSA (CRISSA).--KIRRHA (CIRRHA).
"In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was
composed the town of Krissa [in Phocis, near Delphi] appears
to have been great and powerful, possessing all the broad
plain between Parnassus, Kirphis, and the gulf, to which
latter it gave its name,--and possessing also, what was a
property not less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of Pytho
itself, which the Hymn identifies with Krissa, not indicating
Delphi as a separate place. The Krissæans, doubtless, derived
great profits from the number of visitors who came to visit
Delphi, both by land and by sea, and Kirrha was originally
only the name for their seaport. Gradually, however, the port
appears to have grown in importance at the expense of the
town; ... while at the same time the sanctuary of Pytho with
its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and came
to claim an independent existence of its own. ... In addition
to the above facts, already sufficient in themselves as seeds
of quarrel, we are told that the Kirrhæans abused their
position as masters of the avenue to the temple by sea, and
levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed there. ...
Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they
had also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbours by
outrages upon women, Phocian as well as Argeian, who were
returning from the temple. Thus stood the case, apparently,
about 595 B. C., when the Amphiktyonic meeting interfered ...
to punish the Kirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first
Sacred War in Greece, this object was completely accomplished,
by a joint force of Thessalians under Eurylochus, Sikyonians
under Kleisthenes, and Athenians under Alkmæon; the Athenian
Solon being the person who originated and enforced, in the
Amphiktyonic council, the proposition of interference. Kirrha
... was destroyed, or left to subsist merely as a landing
place; and the whole adjoining plain was consecrated to the
Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. ... The fate
of Kirrha in this war is ascertained: that of Krissa is not so
clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or left
subsisting in a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi.
From this time forward, the Delphian community appears as
substantive and autonomous, exercising in their own right the
management of the temple; though we shall find, on more than
one occasion, that the Phocians contest this right. ... The
spoils of Kirrha were employed by the victorious allies in
founding the Pythian Games. The octennial festival hitherto
celebrated at Delphi in honour of the god, including no other
competition except in the harp and the pæan, was expanded into
comprehensive games on the model of the Olympic, with matches
not only of music, but also of gymnastics and
chariots,--celebrated, not at Delphi itself, but on the
maritime plain near the ruined Kirrha,--and under the direct
superintendence of the Amphiktyons themselves. ... They were
celebrated in the latter half of summer, or first half of
every third Olympic year. ... Nothing was conferred but
wreaths of laurel."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 28.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 610-586;
PYTHO; ORACLES OF THE GREEKS;
and AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.
DELPHI: B. C. 357-338.
Seizure by the Phocians.
The Sacred Wars.
Deliverance by Philip of Macedon.
War with Amphissa.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
DELPHI: B. C. 279.
Discomfiture of the Gauls.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
----------DELPHI: End----------
DELPHIC ORACLE, The.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
DELPHIC SIBYL, The.
See SIBYLS.
DEMES.--DEMI.
See PHYLÆ; also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
DEMETES, The.
One of the tribes of ancient Wales.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DEMETRIUS,
The Impostor.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310, 310-301;
also GREECE: B. C. 307-301;
and RHODES: B. C. 305--304.
DEMIURGI.--COSMOS.--TAGOS OR TAGUS.
Of the less common titles applied among the ancient Greeks to
their supreme magistrates, are "Cosmos, or Cosmios, and Tagos
(signifying Arranger and Commander), the former of which we
find in Crete, the latter in the Thessalian cities. With the
former we may compare the title of Cosmopolis, which was in
use among the Epizephyrian Locrians. A more frequent title is
that of Demiurgi, a name which seems to imply a constitution
no longer oligarchical, but which bestowed certain rights on
the Demos. In the time of the Peloponnesian war magistrates of
this kind existed in Elis and in the Arcadian Mantinæa. ...
The title is declared by Grammarians to have been commonly
used among the Dorians. ... A similar title is that of
Demuchus, which the supreme magistrates of Thespiæ in Bœotia
seem to have borne. ... The Artyni at Epidaurus and Argos we
have already mentioned."
G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 5.
{659}
DEMOCRATIC OR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1789-1792; 1825-1828; 1845-1846.
DEMOSTHENES,
the general at Sphacteria and at Syracuse.
See GREECE: B. C. 425,
and SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
and ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
Demosthenes the orator,
The Phillipics, and the Death of.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, 351-348,
and 323--322;
and ATHENS: B. C. 359-338, and 336-322.
DEMOTIC WRITING.
See HIEROGLYPHICS.
DEMUCHUS.
See DEMIURGI.
DENAIN. Battle of (1712).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
DENARIUS, The.
See AS.
DENDERMONDE.
Surrender to the Spaniards (1584).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
DENIS, King of Portugal, A. D. 1279-1323.
DENMARK.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.
DENNEWITZ, OR JÜTERBOGK, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
DENNIKON, Peace of (1531).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
DENVER, The founding of.
See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.
DEORHAM, Battle of.
Fought A. D. 577, near Bath, England, between the invading
West Saxons and the Britons. The victory of the former gave
them possession of the lower valley of the Severn and
practically completed the Saxon conquest of England.
J. R. Green, The Making of England, pages 125-131.
DERBEND, Pass of.
See JUROIPACH.
DERBY-DISRAELI MINISTRIES The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859;
and 1868-1870.
DERRY.
See LONDONDERRY.
DE RUSSY, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
DESERET, The proposed state of.
See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.
DESMONDS, The.
See GERALDINES.
DESMOULINS, Camille, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY); 1790;
1792 (AUGUST), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).
DESPOT OF EPIRUS.
"The title of despot, by which they [the mediæval princes of
Epirus] are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary
distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family
until it had been conferred on them by the Greek Emperor."
G. Finlay, History of Greece from its conquest by the
Crusaders, chapter 6, section I.
See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
DESPOTS,
Greek.
See TYRANTS.
Italian.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
DESSAU, Battle of (1626).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
DESTRIERS.--PALFREYS.
"A cavaliere or man-at-arms was accompanied by one 'Destriero'
or strong war-horse, and one or two, sometimes three, mounted
squires who led the animal fully caparisoned; or carried the
helmet; lance and shield of their master: these 'Destrieri'
('rich and great horses' as Villani calls them), were so named
because they were led on the right hand without any rider, and
all ready for mounting: the squire's horses were of an
inferior kind called 'Ronzini,' and on the 'Palafreni' or
palfreys the knight rode when not in battle."
H. E. Napier, Florentine History, volume 1, page 633.
DESTROYING ANGELS, OR DANITES.
See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
DETROIT:
First occupied by the Coureurs de Bois.
See COUREURS DE BOIS.
DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.
The first French forts.
Cadillac's founding of the city.
At the beginning of the war called "Queen Anne's War" (1702)
"Detroit had already been established. In June, 1701, la Mothe
Cadillac, with a Jesuit father and 100 men, was sent to
construct a fort and occupy the country; hence he is spoken of
as the founder of the city. In 1686, a fort [called Fort St.
Joseph] had been constructed to the south of the present city,
where Fort Gratiot now stands, but it soon fell into decay and
was abandoned. It was not the site selected by Cadillac."
W. Kingsford, History of Canada, volume 2, page 408.
"Fort St. Joseph was abandoned in the year 1688. The
establishment of Cadillac was destined to a better fate and
soon rose to distinguished importance among the western
outposts of Canada."
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, volume 1, page 218.
DETROIT: A. D. 1701-1755.
Importance to the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
DETROIT: A. D. 1712.
Siege by the Foxes and Massacre of that tribe.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
DETROIT: A. D. 1760.
The French settlement when surrendered to the English.
"The French inhabitants here are settled on both sides of the
river for about eight miles. When I took possession of the
country soon after the surrender of Canada [see CANADA: A. D.
1760], they were about 2,500 in number, there being near 500
that bore arms (to whom I administered oaths of allegiance)
and near 300 dwelling houses. Our fort here is built of
stockadoes, is about 25 feet high, and 1,200 yards in
circumference. ... The inhabitants raise wheat and other grain
in abundance, and have plenty of cattle, but they enrich
themselves chiefly by their trade with the Indians, which is
here very large and lucrative."
Major R. Rogers, Concise Account of North America,
page 168.
DETROIT: A. D. 1763.
Pontiac's Siege.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
DETROIT: A. D. 1775-1783.
Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
CLARK'S CONQUEST.
DETROIT: A. D. 1805.
Made the seat of government of the Territory of Michigan.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
DETROIT: A. D. 1812.
The surrender of General Hull.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
DETROIT: A. D 1813.
American recovery.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
{660}
DETTINGEN, Battle of (1743).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
DEUSDEDIT, Pope, A. D. 615-618.
DEUTSCH. Origin of the name.
See GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAME.
DEUTSCHBROD, Battle of (1422).
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
DEVA.
One of the Roman garrison towns in
Britain, on the site of which is modern Chester,
taking its name from the castra or fortified
station of the legions. It was the station of
the 20th legion.
T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.
DEVE-BOYUN, Battle of (1878).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
DEVIL'S CAUSEWAY, The.
The popular name of an old Roman road in England which runs
from Silchester to London.
DEVIL'S HOLE,
The ambuscade and massacre at.
On the 13th of September, 1763, during the progress of
Pontiac's War, a train of wagons and packhorses, traversing
the Niagara portage between Lewiston and Fort Schlosser,
guarded by an escort of 24 soldiers, was ambuscaded by a party
of Seneca warriors at the place called the Devil's Hole, three
miles below the Niagara cataract. Seventy of the whites were
slain, and only three escaped.
F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 21 (volume 2).
DEVON COMMISSION, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.
DEVONSHIRE, in the British age.
See DUMNONII.
DE WITT, John,
The administration and the murder of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.
DHIHAD.
See DAR-UL-ISLAM.
DIACRII, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594.
DIADOCHI, The.
The immediate successors of Alexander the Great, who divided
his empire, are sometimes so-called. "The word diadochi means
'successors,' and is used to include Antigonus, Ptolemy,
Seleucus, Lysimachus, etc.--the actual companions of
Alexander."
J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 5.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
DIAMOND, Battle of the (1795).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
DIAMOND DISCOVERY IN SOUTH AFRICA (1867).
See GRIQUAS.
DIAMOND NECKLACE, The affair of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
DIASPORA, The.
A name applied to the Jews scattered throughout the Roman
world.
DIAZ, Porfirio, The Mexican presidency of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1888.
DICASTERIA.
The great popular court, or jury, in ancient Athens, called
the Heliæa, or Heliastæ consisting at one time of six thousand
chosen citizens, was divided into ten sections, called
Dicasteria. Their places of meeting also bore the same name.
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, part 3, chapter 3.
See ATHENS: B. C.445-431.
DICKINSON, John, in the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1767-1768; 1774 (SEPTEMBER);
1776 (JULY).
DICTATOR, Roman.
See CONSULS, ROMAN.
DIDIAN LAW, The.
See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.
DIDIER, OR DESIDERIUS,
King of the Lombards, A. D. 759-774.
DIDYMÆUM, The oracle of.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
DIEDENHOFEN, Battle of (1639).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
DIEPPE.
Bombardment and destruction by an English fleet.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
DIES ATRI.
The days on which the Romans thought it unlucky to undertake
business of importance--for example, the day after the
Calends, Nones and Ides of each month--were called Dies Atri.
W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 11.
DIES FASTI.
Dies Nefasti.
Dies Festi.
See FASTI, and LUDI.
DIET.
"An assembly, council, ... Parliament. ... The peculiar sense
of the word undoubtedly arose from a popular etymology that
connected it with the Latin 'dies,' a day, especially a set day, a
day appointed for public business; whence, by extension, a
meeting for business, an assembly."
W. W. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary
DIET:
The Germanic.
"The annual general councils and special councils of Charles
the Great did not long survive him, and neither his
descendants nor their successors revived them. They were
compelled, to be sure, both by custom and by policy to advise
with the chief men of the kingdom before taking any important
step or doing anything that depended for success on their
consent and cooperation, but they varied the number of their
counsellors and the time, place, and manner of consulting them
to suit their own convenience. Great formal assemblies of
counsellors summoned from all parts of the realm were termed
Imperial Diets (Reichstage); small, or local, or informal
assemblies of a similar kind were known as Court Diets
(Hoftage). Princes and other royal vassals, margraves,
palsgraves, Graves, barons, and even royal Dienstmannen were
indiscriminately summoned, but the Diets were in no sense
representative bodies until the Great Interregnum [see
GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272] when certain cities acquired such
influence in public affairs that they were invited to send
delegates. The first Diet in which they participated was held
at Worms in February, 1255, by King William of Holland. Most
of the cities of the Rhenish League were there represented,
and they constituted an important factor of the assembly. The
affairs of the church shared attention with temporal affairs
in the Diets until the Popes succeeded in making good their
claims to supremacy in spiritual matters. Thereafter they were
altogether left to synods and church councils. ... Imperial
Diets and Court Diets continued to be held at irregular
intervals, whenever and wherever it pleased the king to
convene them, but Imperial Diets were usually held in Imperial
cities. These were not such heterogenous assemblies as
formerly, for few royal vassals, except princes, and no royal
Dienstmannen whatever were now invited to attend. Graves and
barons, and prelates who were not princes, continued to be
summoned, but the number and influence of the Graves and
barons in the Diets steadily waned. Imperial cities were for
many years only occasionally asked to participate, that is to
say, only when the king had especial need of their good
offices, but in the latter half of the 14th century they began
to be regularly summoned.
{661}
Imperial Diets were so frequently held during the Hussite War
and thereafter, that it became pretty well settled what
persons and what cities should take part in them, and only
those persons and those cities that were entitled to take part
in them were regarded as Estates of the realm. In the 15th
century they developed into three chambers or colleges, viz.,
the College of Electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152], the
College of Princes, Graves, and Barons, usually called the
Council of Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürstenrath), and the
College of Imperial Cities. The Archbishop of Mentz presided
in the College of Electors, and the Archbishop of Salzburg and
the Duke of Austria presided alternately in the Council of
Princes of the Empire. The office of presiding in the College
of Imperial Cities devolved upon the Imperial city in which
the Diet sat. The king and members of both the upper Colleges
sometimes sent deputies to represent them, instead of
attending in person. In 1474 the cities adopted a method of
voting which resulted in a division of their College into two
Benches, called the Rhenish Bench and the Swabian Bench,
because the Rhenish cities were conspicuous members of the
one, and the Swabian cities conspicuous members of the other.
In the Council of Princes, at least, no regard was had to the
number of votes cast, but only to the power and influence of
the voters, whence a measure might pass the Diet by less than
a majority of the votes present. Having passed, it was
proclaimed as the law of the realm, upon receiving the king's
assent, but was only effective law in so far as the members of
the Diet, present or absent, assented to it. ... Not a single
Imperial Diet was summoned between 1613 and 1640. The king
held a few Court Diets during that long interval, consisting
either of the Electors alone, or of the Electors and such
other Princes of the Empire as he chose to summon. The
conditions of membership, and the manner of voting in the
College of Electors and the College of Imperial Cities
remained unchanged. ... The cities long strove in vain to have
their votes recognized as of equal weight with the others, but
the two upper Colleges insisted on regarding them as summoned
for consultation only, until the Peace of Westphalia settled
the matter by declaring that 'a decisive vote (votum
decisivum) shall belong to the Free Imperial Cities not less
than to the rest of the Estates of the Empire.' Generally, but
not always, the sense of each College was expressed by the
majority of votes cast. The Peace of Westphalia provided that
'in religious matters and all other business, when the Estates
cannot be considered one body (corpus), as also when the
Catholic Estates and those of the Augsburg Confession go into
two parts (in duas partes euntibus), a mere amicable agreement
shall settle the differences without regard to majority of
votes.' When the 'going into parts,' (itio in partes) took
place each College deliberated in two bodies, the Corpus
Catholicorum and the Corpus Evangelicorum. The king no longer
attended the Imperial Diets in person, but sent commissioners
instead, and it was now the common practice of members of both
the upper Colleges to send deputies to represent them."
S. E. . Turner, Sketch of the Germanic
Constitution, chapter 4, 5, and 6.
"The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the
electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of
the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign" (Leopold
I., 1657-1705). This came about rather accidentally than with
intention, as a consequence of the unusual prolongation of the
session of a general diet which Rudolph convoked at Ratisbon,
soon after his accession to the throne. "'So many new and
important objects ... occurred in the course of the
deliberations that the diet was unusually prolonged, and at
last rendered perpetual, as it exists at present, and
distinguishes the Germanic constitution as the only one of its
kind--not only for a certain length of time, as was formerly,
and as diets are generally held in other countries, where
there are national states; but the diet of the Germanic empire
was established by this event for ever. The diet acquired by
this circumstance an entirely different form. So long as it
was only of short duration, it was always expected that the
emperor, as well as the electors, princes, counts and
prelates, if not all, yet the greatest part of them, should
attend in person. ... It is true, it had long been customary
at the diets of Germany, for the states to deliver their votes
occasionally by means of plenipotentiaries; but it was then
considered only as an exception, whereas it was now
established as a general rule, that all the states should send
their plenipotentiaries, and never appear themselves. ... The
whole diet, therefore, imperceptibly acquired the form of a
congress, consisting solely of ministers, similar in a great
degree to a congress where several powers send their envoys to
treat of peace. In other respects, it may be compared to a
congress held in the name of several states in perpetual
alliance with each other, as in Switzerland, the United
Provinces, and as somewhat of a similar nature exists at
present in North America; but with this difference,--that in
Germany the assembly is held under the authority of one common
supreme head, and that the members do not appear merely as
deputies, or representatives invested with full power by their
principals, which is only the case with the imperial cities;
but so that every member of the two superior colleges of the
empire is himself an actual sovereign of a state, who permits
his minister to deliver his vote in his name and only
according to his prescription.'"
S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)--(quoting Putter's Historical
Development of the Germanic Constitution.)
Of the later Diet, of the Germanic Confederation, something
may be learned under GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, and 1848
(MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
----------DIET: End----------
DIFFIDATION, The Right of.
See LANDFRIEDE.
DIGITI.
See FOOT, THE ROMAN.
DIJON, Battle at.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
DIJON, Origin of.
Dijon, the old capital of the Dukes of Burgundy, was
originally a strong camp-city--an "urbs quadrata"--of the
Romans, known as the Castrum Divionense. Its walls were 30
feet high, 15 feet thick, and strengthened with 33 towers.
T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.
DILEMITES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
DIMETIA.
See BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.
DINAN, Battle of (1597).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
{662}
DINANT, Destruction of.
In the 15th century, down to the year 1466, Dinant was a
populous and thriving town. It was included in the little
state of the prince-bishop of Liege, and was involved in the
war of the Duke of Burgundy with Liege, which ruined both
Liege and Dinant. "It was inhabited by a race of industrious
artisans, preëminent for their skill in the manufacture of
copper. The excellence of their workmanship is attested by
existing specimens--organ-screens, baptismal fonts, and other
ecclesiastical decorations. But the fame of Dinant had been
chiefly spread by its production of more common and useful
articles, especially of kitchen utensils,--'pots and pans and
similar wares,'--which, under the name of 'Dinanderie,' were
known to housewives throughout Europe." In the course of the
war a party of rude young men from Dinant gave deep,
unforgivable provocation to the Duke of Burgundy by
caricaturing and questioning the paternity of his son, the
count of Charolais, afterwards Duke Charles the Bold. To
avenge this insult nothing less than the destruction of the
whole city would satisfy the implacable and ferocious
Burgundians. It was taken by the count of Charolais in August,
1466. His first proceeding was to sack the town, in the most
thorough and deliberate manner. Then 800 of the more obnoxious
citizens were tied together in pairs and drowned in the Meuse,
while others were hanged. This accomplished, the surviving
women, children and priests were expelled from the town and
sent empty-handed to Liege, while the men were condemned to
slavery, with the privilege of ransoming themselves at a heavy
price, if they found anywhere the means. Finally, the torch
was applied, Dinant was burned, and contractors were
subsequently employed by the Duke for several months, to
demolish the ruins and remove the very materials of which the
city had been built.
J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapter 8-9.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet (Johnes), Chronicles,
book 3, chapter 138-139.
Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 2, chapter 1.
DINWIDDIE COURT HOUSE, Action at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
DIOBOLY, The.
Pericles "was the proposer of the law [at Athens] which
instituted the 'Dioboly,' or free gift of two obols to each
poor citizen, to enable him to pay the entrance-money at the
theatre during the Dionysia."
C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, page 271.
See ATHENS: B. C. 435-431.
DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
"The civil government of the empire was distributed [under
Constantine and his successors] into thirteen great dioceses,
each of which equalled the just measure of a powerful kingdom.
The first of these dioceses was subject to the jurisdiction of
the Count of the East. The place of Augustal Præfect of Egypt
was no longer filled by a Roman knight, but the name was
retained. ... The eleven remaining dioceses--of Asiana,
Pontica, and Thrace; of Macedonia, Dacia and Pannonia, or
Western Illyricum; of Italy and Africa; of Gaul, Spain, and
Britain--were governed by twelve vicars or vice-præfects."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See PUÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.
DIOCLETIAN, Roman Emperor.
See ROME: A. D. 284-305..
DIOCLETIAN: Abdication.
"The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious
plain about three miles from Nicomedia [May 1, A. D. 305]. The
Emperor ascended a lofty throne, and, in a speech full of
reason and dignity, declared his intention, both to the people
and to the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary
occasion. As soon as lie had divested himself of the purple,
he withdrew from the gazing multitude, and, traversing the
city in a covered chariot, proceeded without delay to the
favourite retirement [Salona] which he had chosen in his
native country of Dalmatia."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See, also, SALONA.
DIOKLÉS, Laws of.
A code of laws framed at Syracuse, immediately after the
Athenian siege, by a commission of ten citizens the chief of
whom was one Dioklês. These laws were extinguished in a few
years by the Dyonisian tyranny, but revived after a lapse of
sixty years. The code is "also said to have been copied in
various other Sicilian cities, and to have remained in force
until the absorption of all Sicily under the dominion of the
Romans."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 81.
DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.
"The four principal Attik Dionysiak festivals were (1) the
Dionysia Mikra, the Lesser or Rural Dionysia; (2) the Dionysia
Lenaia; (3) the Anthesteria; and (4) the Dionysia Megala, the
Greater or City Dionysia. The Rural Dionysia, celebrated
yearly in the month Posideon (Dec.-January) throughout the
various townships of Attike, was presided over by the demarch
or mayor. The celebration occasioned a kind of rustic
carnival, distinguished like almost all Bakchik festivals, by
gross intemperance and licentiousness, and during which slaves
enjoyed a temporary freedom, with licence to insult their
superiors and behave in a boisterous and disorderly manner. It
is brought vividly before us in the 'Acharnes' of
Aristophanes. ... The Anthesteria, or Feast of Flowers,
celebrated yearly in the month Anthesterion (February-March), ...
lasted for three days, the first of which was called
Pithoigia, or Tap-barrel-day, on which they opened the casks
and tried the wine of the previous year. ... The Dionysia
Megala, the Greater or City Dionysia, celebrated yearly in the
month Elaphebolion (March-April) was presided over by the
Archon Eponymos, so-called because the year was registered in
his name, and who was first of the nine. The order of the
solemnities was as follows:
I. The great public procession.
II. The chorus of Youths.
III. The Komos, or band of Dionysiak revellers, whose
ritual is best illustrated in Milton's exquisite poem.
IV. The representation of Comedy and Tragedy; for at
Athenai the stage was religion and the theatre a temple.
At the time of this great festival the capital was filled with
rustics from the country townships, and strangers from all
parts of Hellas and the outer world."
R. Brown, The Great Dionysiak Myth, chapter 6.
DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT SYRACUSE, The.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396, and 344.
DIPLAX, The.
See PEPLUM.
DIPYLUM, The.
See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.
DIRECTORY, The French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER); 1797 (SEPTEMBER).
{663}
DISINHERITED BARONS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
DISRAELI-DERBY AND BEACONSFIELD MINISTRIES.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852: 1858-1859;
1868-1870: and 1873-1880.
DISRUPTION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
DISSENTERS, OR NONCONFORMISTS, English:
First bodies organized.
Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.
Removal of Disabilities.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665:
1672-1673: 1711-1714; 1827-1828.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The.
See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.
DIVAN, The.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
DIVODURUM.
The Gallic name of the city afterwards called
Mediomatrici--now Metz.
DIVONA.
Modern Cahors.
See CADURCI.
DIWANI.
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
DIX, General John A.:
Message to New Orleans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).
DJEM, OR JEM, Prince, The Story of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
DOAB, The English acquisition of the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
DOBRIN, Knights of the Order of the Brethren of.
See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.
DOBRUDJA, The.
The peninsula formed between the Danube, near its mouth, and
the Black Sea.
DOBUNI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons who held a region between the two
Avons.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DOCETISM.
"We note another phase of gnosticism in the doctrine so
directly and warmly combated in the epistles of John: we refer
to docetism--that is, the theory which refused to recognize
the reality of the human body of Christ."
E. Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic
Age, page 323.
DODONA.
See HELLAS.
DOGE.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
DOGGER BANKS, Naval Battle of the (1781).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
DOKIMASIA.
"All magistrates [in ancient Athens] whether elected by
cheirotonia or by lot, were compelled, before entering upon
their office, to subject themselves to a Dokimasia, or
scrutiny into their fitness for the post."
G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece:
The State, part 3, chapter 3.
DÖLICHOCEPHALIC MEN.
A term used in ethnology, signifying "long-headed," as
distinguishing one class of skulls among the remains of
primitive men, from another class called brachycephalic, or
"broad-headed."
DOLLINGER, Doctor, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
DOLMENS.
See CROMLECHS.
DOMESDAY, OR DOOMSDAY BOOK.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, The.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
DOMINICANS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS:
also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
DOMINION OF CANADA.-DOMINION DAY.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
DOMINUS.
See IMPERATOR, FINAL SIGNIFICATION OF
THE ROMAN TITLE.
DOMITIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 81-96.
DOMITZ, Battle of (1635).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
DON JOHN OF AUSTRIA.
See JOHN (DON) OF AUSTRIA.
DON PACIFICO AFFAIR, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850;
and GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
DONALD BANE, King of Scotland, A. D. 1093-1098
(expelled during part of the period by Duncan II.)
DONATI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.
DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
DONATION OF THE COUNTESS MATILDA.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
DONATIONS OF PEPIN AND CHARLEMAGNE.
See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
DONATISTS, The.
"The Donatist controversy was not one of doctrine, but of
ecclesiastical discipline; the contested election for the
archbishopric of Carthage. Two competitors, Cecilius and
Donatus, had been concurrently elected while the church was
yet in a depressed state, and Africa subject to the tyrant
Maxentius [A. D. 306-312]. Scarcely had Constantine subdued
that province, when the two rivals referred their dispute to
him. Constantine, who still publicly professed paganism, but
had shown himself very favourable to the Christians,
instituted a careful examination of their respective claims,
which lasted from the year 312 to 315, and finally decided in
favour of Cecilius. Four hundred African bishops protested
against this decision; from that time they were designated by
the name of Donatists. ... In compliance with an order of the
emperor, solicited by Cecilius, the property of the Donatists
was seized and transferred to the antagonist body of the
clergy. They revenged themselves by pronouncing sentence of
excommunication against all the rest of the Christian world.
... Persecution on one side and fanaticism on the other were
perpetuated through three centuries, up to the period of the
extinction of Christianity in Africa. The wandering preachers
of the Donatist faction had no other means of living than the
alms of their flocks. ... As might be expected, they outdid
each other in extravagance, and soon gave in to the most
frantic ravings: thousands of peasants, drunk with the effect
of these exhortations, forsook their ploughs and fled to the
deserts of Getulia. Their bishops, assuming the title of
captains of the saints, put themselves at their head, and they
rushed onward, carrying death and desolation into the adjacent
provinces: they were distinguished by the name of
Circumcelliones: Africa was devastated by their ravages."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
volume 2, chapter 6.
DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1632.
Taken by Gustavus Adolphus.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1704.
Taken by Marlborough.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
----------DONAUWÖRTH: End----------
DONELSON, Fort, Capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY:
KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
{664}
DONGAN CHARTER, The.
See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1686.
DONUM.
See TALLAGE.
DONUS I., Pope, A. D. 676-678.
Donus II., Pope, A. D. 974-975.
DONZELLO.
See DÂMOISEL.
DOOMS OF INE, The.
"These laws were republished by King Alfred as 'The Dooms of
Ine' who [Ine] came to the throne in A. D. 688. In their first
clause they claim to have been recorded by King Ine with the
counsel and teaching of his father Cenred and of Hedde, his
bishop (who was Bishop of Winchester from A. D. 676 to 705)
and of Eorcenweld, his bishop (who obtained the see of London
in 675); and so, if genuine, they seem to represent what was
settled customary law in Wessex during the last half of the
seventh century."
F. Seebohm, English Village Community, chapter 4.
DOOMSDAY, OR DOMESDAY BOOK.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.
DOORANEES, OR DURANEES, The
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
DORDRECHT, OR DORT, Synod of.
See DORT;
also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
DORIA, Andrew, The deliverance of Genoa by.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
DORIANS AND IONIANS, The.
"Out of the great Pelasgian population [see PELASGIANS], which
covered Anterior Asia Minor and the whole European peninsular
land, a younger people had issued forth separately, which we
find from the first divided into two races. These main races
we may call, according to the two dialects of the Greek
language, the Dorian and the Ionian, although these names are
not generally used until a later period to designate the
division of the Hellenic nation. No division of so thorough a
bearing could have taken place unless accompanied by an early
local separation. We assume that the two races parted company
while yet in Asia Minor. One of them settles in the
mountain-cantons of Northern Hellas, the other along the
Asiatic coast. In the latter the historic movement begins.
With the aid of the art of navigation, learnt from the
Phœnicians the Asiatic Greeks at an early period spread over
the sea; domesticating themselves in lower Egypt, in countries
colonized by the Phœnicians, in the whole Archipelago, from
Crete to Thrace; and from their original as well as from their
subsequent seats send out numerous settlements to the coast of
European Greece, first from the East side, next, after
conquering their timidity, also taking in the country, beyond
Cape Malea from the West. At first they land as pirates and
enemies, then proceed to permanent settlements in gulfs and
straits of the sea, and by the mouths of rivers, where they
unite with the Pelasgian population. The different periods of
this colonization may be judged of by the forms of divine
worship, and by the names under which the maritime tribes were
called by the natives. Their rudest appearance is as Carians;
as Leleges their influence is more beneficent and permanent."
Dr. E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2.
In the view of Dr. Curtius, the later migration of Ionian
tribes from Southern Greece to the coasts of Asia
Minor,--which is an undoubted historic fact,--was really a
return "into the home of their ancestors"--"the ancient home
of the great Ionic race." Whether that be the true view or
not, the movement in question was connected, apparently, with
important movements among the Dorian Greeks in Greece itself.
These latter, according to all accounts, and the agreement of
all historians, were long settled in Thessaly, at the foot of
Olympus (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS). It was there that their
moral and political development began; there that they learned
to look at Olympus as the home of the gods, which all Greeks
afterwards learned to do from them. "The service rendered by
the Dorian tribe," says Dr. Curtius, "lay in having carried
the germs of national culture out of Thessaly, where the
invasion of ruder peoples disturbed and hindered their farther
growth, into the land towards the south, where these germs
received an unexpectedly new and grand development. ... A race
claiming descent from Heracles united itself in this
Thessalian coast-district with the Dorians and established a
royal dominion among them. Ever afterwards Heraclidæ and
Dorians remained together, but without ever forgetting the
original distinction between them. In their seats by Olympus
the foundations were laid of the peculiarity of the Dorians in
political order and social customs; at the foot of Olympus was
their real home."-
Dr. E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 4.
From the neighborhood of Olympus the Dorians moved southwards
and found another home in "the fertile mountain-recess between
Parnassus and Œta, ... the most ancient Doris known to us by
name." Their final movement was into Peloponnesus, which was
"the most important and the most fertile in consequences of
all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued, even
to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
character." Thenceforwards the Dorians were the dominant race
in Peloponnesus, and to their chief state, Lacedæmonia, or
Sparta, was generally conceded the headship of the Hellenic
family. This Doric occupation of Peloponnesus, the period of
which is supposed to have been about 1100 B. C., no doubt
caused the Ionic migration from that part of Greece and
colonization of Asia Minor.
C. O. Müller, History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
book 1, chapter 3.
The subsequent division of the Hellenic world between Ionians
and Dorians is thus defined by Schömann: "To the Ionians
belong the inhabitants of Attica, the most important part of
the population of Eubœa, and the islands of the Ægean included
under the common name of Cyclades, as well as the colonists
both on the Lydian and Carian coasts of Asia Minor and in the
two larger islands Of Chios and Samos which lie opposite. To
the Dorians within the Peloponnese belong the Spartans, as
well as the dominant populations of Argos, Sicyon, Philus,
Corinth, Troezene and Epidaurus, together with the island of
Ægina; outside the Peloponnese, but nearest to it, were the
Megarid, and the small Dorian Tetrapolis [also called
Pentapolis and Tripolis] near Mount Parnassus; at a greater
distance were the majority of the scattered islands and a
large portion of the Carian coasts of Asia Minor and the
neighbouring islands, of which Cos and Rhodes were the most
important. Finally, the ruling portion of the Cretan
population was of Dorian descent."
G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece:
The State, part 1, chapter 1.
See, also,
GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS; ASIA MINOR:
THE GREEK COLONIES; HERACLIDÆ; SPARTA;
and ÆOLIANS.
{665}
DORIS AND DRYOPIS.
"The little territory [in ancient Greece] called Doris and
Dryopis occupied the southern declivity of Mount Œta, dividing
Phokis on the north and northwest from the Ætolians, Ænianes
and Malians. That which was called Doris in the historical
times, and which reached in the times of Herodotus nearly as
far eastward as the Maliac gulf, is said to have formed a part
of what had been once called Dryopis; a territory which had
comprised the summit of Œta as far as the Sperchius,
northward, and which had been inhabited by an old Hellenic
tribe called Dryopes. The Dorians acquired their settlement in
Dryopis by gift from Hêraklês, who, along with the Malians (so
ran the legend), had expelled the Dryopes and compelled them
to find for themselves new seats at Hermionê, and Asinê, in
the Argolic peninsula of Peloponnesus,--at Styra and Karystus
in Eubœa,--and in the island of Kythnus; it is only in these
five last-mentioned places that history recognizes them. The
territory of Doris was distributed into four little
townships,--Pindus, or Akyphas, Bœon, Kytinion and Erineon.
... In itself this tetrapolis is so insignificant that we
shall rarely find occasion to mention it; but it acquired a
factitious consequence by being regarded as the metropolis of
the great Dorian cities in Peloponnesus, and receiving on that
ground special protection from Sparta."
G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 2.
See also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.
DORMANS, Battle of (1575).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
DORNACH, Battle of (1499).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
DORR REBELLION, The.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
DORT, OR DORDRECHT, The Synod of.
"In the low-countries the supreme government, the
states-general, interfered [in the Calvinistic controversy],
and in the year 1618 convoked the first and only synod bearing
something of the character of a general council that has been
convened by protestants. It assembled at Dort, and continued
its sittings from November till May following. Its business
was to decide the questions at issue between the Calvinists
and Arminians; the latter party were also termed remonstrants.
James [I.] was requested to send over representatives for the
English Church, and chose four divines:--Carlton bishop of
Llandaff, Hall dean of Worcester, afterwards bishop
successively of Exeter and Norwich, Davenant afterwards bishop
of Salisbury, and Dr. S. Ward of Cambridge. They were men of
learning and moderation. ... The history of this famous synod
is told in various ways. Its decisions were in favour of the
doctrines termed Calvinistic, and the remonstrants were
expelled from Holland. ... The majority were even charged by
the other party with having bound themselves by an oath before
they entered upon business, to condemn the remonstrants."
J. B. Marsden, History of Early Puritans, page 329.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
DORYLAEUM, Battle of (1097).
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
DOUAI: A. D.1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
DOUAI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
DOUAI: A. D. 1710.
Siege and capture by Marlborough.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
----------DOUAI: End----------
DOUAI, The Catholic Seminary at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
DOUBLOON.-DOBLON.
See SPANISH COINS.
DOUGHFACES.
The "Missouri Compromise," of 1820, in the United States, "was
a Northern measure, carried by Northern votes. With some the
threats of disunion were a sufficient influence; some, whom in
the debate Randolph [John Randolph, of Virginia] called
doughfaces, did not need even that. ... There has been always
a singular servility in the character of a portion of the
American people. In that class the slaveholder has always
found his Northern servitor. Randolph first gave it a name to
live by in the term doughface."
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the
United States, volume 4, pages 270 and 294.
DOUGLAS, Stephen A.,
and the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
Defeat in Presidential election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (APRIL.-NOVEMBER).
DOURO, Battle of the (1580).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
Wellington's passage of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
DOVER, Roman Origin of.
See DUBRIS
DOVER, Tennessee, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
DOVER, Treaty of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
DOWLAH, Surajah, and the English in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757, and 1757.
DRACHMA.
See TALENT.
DRACONIAN LAWS.
See ATHENS: B. C. 624.
DRAFT RIOTS, The.
See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1863.
DRAGON.--PENDRAGON.
A title sometimes given in Welsh poetry to a king or great
military leader. Supposed to be derived from the figure of a
dragon on their flags, which they borrowed from the Romans.
See CUMBRIA.
DRAGONNADES, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
DRAKE'S PIRACIES, and his famous voyage.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
DRANGIANS, The.
See SARANGIANS.
DRAPIER'S LETTERS, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.
DRAVIDIAN RACES.
See TURANIAN RACES;
also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
DRED SCOTT CASE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
DREPANA, Naval battle at, B. C. 249.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
DRESDEN: A. D. 1756.
Capture and occupation by Frederick the Great.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
DRESDEN: A. D. 1759-1760.
Capture by the Austrians.
Bombardment by Frederick.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER), and 1760.
DRESDEN: A. D. 1813.
Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
Taken by the French.
Invested by the Allies.
Great battle before the city and victory for Napoleon.
French reverses.
St Cyr's surrender.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
1813 (APRIL-MAY); (AUGUST);
(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
----------DRESDEN: End----------
{666}
DRESDEN, Treaty of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
DREUX, Battle of (1562).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
DROGHEDA, OR TREDAH,
Cromwell's massacre at.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
DROITWICH, Origin of.
See SALINÆ.
DROMONES.
A name given to the light galleys of the Byzantine empire.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 53.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
DRUIDS.
The priesthood of a religion which existed among the Celts of
Gaul and Britain before they were Christianized. "Greek and
Roman writers give us very little information on this subject
and the early Welsh records and poetry none at all. Modern
Welsh writers have, however, made up for this want in their
genuine literature by inventing an elaborate Druidical system
of religion and philosophy which, they pretend, survived the
introduction of Christianity and was secretly upheld by the
Welsh bards in the Middle Ages. This Neo-Druidic imposture has
found numerous adherents."
W. K. Sullivan, Article, "Celtic Literature,"
Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Pliny, alluding to the Druids' predilection for groves of
oak, adds the words: 'ut inde appellati quoque interpretatione
Græca possint Druidæ videri.' ... Had he possessed knowledge
enough of the Gaulish language, he would have seen that it
supplied an explanation which rendered it needless to have
recourse to Greek, namely in the native word 'dru,' which we
have in 'Drunemeton,' or the sacred Oak-grove, given by Strabo
as the name of the place of assembly of the Galatians. In
fact, one has, if I am not mistaken, been skeptic with regard
to this etymology, not so much on phonological grounds as from
failing exactly to see how the oak could have given its name
to such a famous organization as the druidic one must be
admitted to have been. But the parallels just indicated, as
showing the importance of the sacred tree in the worship of
Zeus and the gods representing him among nations other than
the Greek one, help to throw some light on this point.
According to the etymology here alluded to, the Druids would
be the priests of the god associated or identified with the
oak; that is, as we are told, the god who seemed to those who
were familiar with the pagan theology of the Greeks, to stand
in the same position in Gaulish theology that Zeus did in the
former. This harmonizes thoroughly with all that is known
about the Druids."
J. Rhys, Hibbert Lectures., 1886, on Celtic
Heathendom, lecture 2, part. 2.
"Our traditions of the Scottish and Irish Druids are evidently
derived from a time when Christianity had long been
established. These insular Druids are represented as being
little better than conjurors, and their dignity is as much
diminished as the power of the king is exaggerated. ... He is
a Pharaoh or Belshazzar with a troop of wizards at his
command; but his Druids are sorcerers and rain-doctors. ...
The Druids of Strabo's description walked in scarlet and gold
brocade and wore golden collars and bracelets; but their
doctrines may have been much the same as those of the
soothsayers by the Severn, the Irish medicine-men or those
rustic wizards by the Loire. ... After the conversion of
Ireland was accomplished the Druids disappear from history.
Their mystical powers were transferred without much alteration
to the abbots and bishops who ruled the 'families of the
saints.'"
C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
Julius Cæsar, Gallic War, book 6, chapters 13-18.
Strabo, Geography, book 4, chapter 4, sections 4-6.
For an account of the final destruction of the Druids, in
their last retreat, on the island of Mona, or Anglesey,
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
DRUMCLOG, The Covenanters at.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE).
DRURY'S BLUFF, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.
DRUSUS, Germanic campaigns of.
See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.
DRYOPIANS, The.
One of the aboriginal nations of ancient Greece, whose
territory was in the valley of the Spercheus and extended as
far as Parnassus and Thermopylæ; but who were afterwards
widely dispersed in many colonies. It is, says C. O. Müller,
"historically certain that a great part of the Dryopians were
consecrated as a subject people to the Pythian Apollo (an
usage of ancient times, of which there are many instances) and
that for a long time they served as such."
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 2.
See, also, DORIS; and HIERODULI.
DUBARRY, Countess, Ascendancy of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
DUBH GALLS.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.
DUBIENKA, Battle of(1792).
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
DUBITZA: Taken by the Austrians (1787).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
DUBLIN: The Danish Kingdom.
See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES:
also NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1014.
The battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1170
Taken by the Norman-English.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1646-1649.
Sieges in the Civil War.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
DUBLIN: A. D. 1750.
The importance of the city.
"In the middle of the 18th century it was in dimensions and
population the second city in the empire, containing,
according to the most trustworthy accounts, between 100,000
and 120,000 inhabitants. Like most things in Ireland, it
presented vivid contrasts, and strangers were equally struck
with the crowds of beggars, the inferiority of the inns, the
squalid wretchedness of the streets of the old town, and with
the noble proportions of the new quarter, and the brilliant
and hospitable society that inhabited it. The Liffey was
spanned by four bridges, and another on a grander scale was
undertaken in 1753. St. Stephen's Green was considered the
largest square in Europe. The quays of Dublin were widely
celebrated."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England,
18th Century, chapter 7 (volume 2).
----------DUBLIN: End----------
DUBRIS, OR DUBRÆ.
The Roman port on the east coast of Britain which is now known
as Dover. In Roman times, as now, it was the principal
landing-place on the British side of the channel.
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
{667}
DUCAT, Spanish.
See SPANISH COINS.
DUCES.
See COUNT AND DUKE.
DUDLEY, Thomas,
and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.
DUFFERIN, Lord.
The Indian Administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1888.
DU GUESCLIN'S CAMPAIGNS:
See FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
DUKE, The Roman.
Origin of the title.
See COUNT AND DUKE.
DUKE'S LAWS, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
DULGIBINI AND CHASAURI, The.
"These people [tribes of the ancient Germans] first resided
near the head of the Lippe, and then removed to the
settlements of the Chamavi and the Angrevarii, who had
expelled the Bructeri."
Tacitus, Germany, chapter 34, Oxford trans., note.
See also, SAXONS.
DUMBARTON, Origin of.
See ALCLYDE.
DUMBARTON CASTLE, Capture of (1571).
Dumbarton Castle, held by the party of Mary Queen of Scots, in
the civil war which followed her deposition and detention in
England, was captured in 1571, for the regent Lennox, by an
extraordinary act of daring on the part of one Capt. Crawford.
P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 10.
DUMNONIA, OR DAMNONIA, The kingdom of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
DUMNONII, The.
"It is ... a remarkable circumstance that the Dumnonii, whom
we find in the time of Ptolemy occupying the whole of the
southwestern extremity of Britain, including both Devonshire
and Cornwall, and who must therefore have been one of the most
powerful nations in the island, are never once mentioned in
the history of the conquest of the country by the Romans; nor
is their name found in any writer before Ptolemy. ... The
conjecture of Mr. Beale Poste . . . that they were left in
nominal independence under a native king ... appears to me
highly probable."
E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 23, note B.
There appears to have been a northern branch of the Dumnonii
or Damnonii, which held an extensive territory on the Clyde
and the Forth.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DUMOURIEZ, Campaigns and treason of.
See FRANCE:
A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
1792-1793; and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
DUNBAR: A. D. 1296.-Battle.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
DUNBAR: A. D. 1339. Siege.
The fortress of Dunbar, besieged by the English under the Earl
of Salisbury in 1339, was successfully defended in the absence
of the governor, the Earl of March, by his wife, known
afterwards in Scotch history and tradition as "Black Agnes of
Dunbar."
DUNBAR: A. D. 1650.-Battle.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
----------DUNBAR: End----------
DUNCAN I.,
King of Scotland, A. D. 1033-1039..
Duncan II., A. D. 1094-1095.
DUNDALK, Battle of (1318).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.
DUNDEE (CLAVERHOUSE) AND THE COVENANTERS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE);
1681-1689; and 1689 (JULY).
DUNDEE: A. D. 1645.
Pillaged by Montrose.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
DUNDEE: A. D. 1651.
Storm and massacre by Monk.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (AUGUST'--SEPTEMBER).
----------DUNDEE: End----------
DUNES, Battle of the (1658).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.
DUNKELD, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (AUGUST).
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1631.
Unsuccessful siege by the Dutch.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1646.
Siege and capture by the French.
Importance of the port.
Its harborage of pirates.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1652.
Recovered by the Spaniards.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1658.
Acquired by Cromwell for England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1662.
Sold by Charles II. to France.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1713.
Fortifications and harbor destroyed.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1713.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1748.
Demolition of fortifications again stipulated.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1763.
The demolition of fortifications pledged once more.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
DUNKIRK: A. D. 1793.
Unsuccessful siege by the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
----------DUNKIRK: End----------
DUNMORE, Lord,
and the end of royal government in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE); and 1775-1776.
DUNMORE'S WAR.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
DUNNICHEN, Battle of (A. D. 685).
See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
DUPLEIX AND THE FRENCH IN INDIA.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
DUPONT, Admiral Samuel F.
Naval attack on Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).
DÜPPEL, Siege and capture of (1864).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
DUPPELN, Battle of (1848).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK):
A. D. 1848-1862.
DUPPLIN MOOR, Battle of (1332).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
DUQUESNE, Fort.
See PITTSBURGH.
DURA, Treaty of.
The humiliating treaty of peace concluded with the Persians,
A. D. 363, after the defeat and death of the Roman emperor
Julian, by his successor Jovian.
G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy chapter 10.
DURANEES, OR DOORANEES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
DURAZZO, Neapolitan dynasty of.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389; 1386-1414,
and ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
DURBAR, OR DARBAR.
An audience room in the palace of an East Indian prince. Hence
applied to a formal audience or levee given by the
governor-general of India, or by one of the native princes.
Century Dictionary
DURHAM, OR NEVILLE'S CROSS, Battle of (A. D. 1346).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
{668}
DUROBRIVÆ.
A name given to two Roman towns in Britain; one of which has
been identified with modern Rochester, the other with the town
of Castor, near Peterborough.
DUROBRIVIAN WARE.
See CASTOR WARE.
DUROCOBRIVÆ.
An important market-town in Roman Britain, supposed to have
been situated at or near modern Dunstable.
T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.
DUROTRIGES.
One of the tribes of ancient Britain whose home was in the
modern county of Dorset.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
DUROVERNUM.
A Roman town in Britain, identified with the modern
Canterbury. Durovernum was destroyed by the Jutes in 455.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY.
See EAST INDIA COMPANY, THE DUTCH.
DUTCH GAP CANAL.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
DUTCH REPUBLIC,
The constitution and declared independence of the.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1584-1585.
DUTCH WEST INDIA COMPANY.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
and BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.
DÜTLINGEN, OR TUTTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
DYAKS, OR DAYAKS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
DYRRHACHIUM: The founding of.
See KORKYRA.
DYRRHACHIUM: Provoking cause of the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.
DYRRHACHIUM: B. C. 48.
Cæsar's reverse.
See ROME: B. C. 48.
DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1081-1082.
Siege by Robert Guiscard.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1204.
Acquired by the Despot of Epirus.
See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
----------DYRRHACHIUM: End----------
DYRRHACHIUM, Peace of.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
DYVED.
See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.
E.
EADMUND, EADWINE, ETC.
See EDMUND, ETC.
EALDORMAN.
"The chieftains of the first settlers in our own island bore
no higher title than Ealdorman or Heretoga. ... The name of
Ealdorman is one of a large class; among a primitive people
age implies command and command implies age; hence in a
somewhat later stage of language the elders are simply the
rulers and the eldest are the highest in rank, without any
thought of the number of years which they may really have
lived. It is not perfectly clear in what the authority or
dignity of the King exceeded that of the Ealdorman. ... Even
the smallest Kingdom was probably formed by the union of the
districts of several Ealdormen."
E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 3, section 1.
"The organisation of the shire was of much the same character
as that of the hundred [each shire containing, however, a
number of hundreds], but it was ruled by an ealdorman as well
as by a gerefa, and in some other respects bore evidence of
its previous existence as an independent unity. Its gemot was
not only the scir-gemot but the folc-gemot also, the assembly
of the people; its ealdorman commanded not merely the military
force of the hundreds, but the lords of the franchises and the
church vassals with their men. Its gerefa or sheriff collected
the fiscal us well as the local imposts. Its ealdorman was one
of the king's witan. The ealdorman, the princeps of Tacitus,
and princeps, or satrapa, or subregulus of Bede, the dux of
the Latin chroniclers and the comes of the Normans, was
originally elected in the general assembly of the nation. ...
The hereditary principle appears however in the early days of
the kingdom as well as in those of Edward the Confessor; in
the case of an under-kingdom being annexed to a greater the
old royal dynasty seems to have continued to hand down its
delegated authority from father to son. The under-kings of
Hwiccia thus continued to act as ealdormen under Mercia for a
century; and the ealdormanship of the Gyrwas or fen-countrymen
seems likewise to have been hereditary. The title of ealdorman
is thus much older than the existing division of shires, nor
was it ever the rule for every shire to have an ealdorman to
itself as it had its sheriff. ... But each shire was under an
ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop in the
folkmoot, received a third part of the profits of the
jurisdiction, and commanded the military force of the whole
division. From the latter character he derived the name of
heretoga, leader of the host ('here'), or dux, which is
occasionally given him in charters."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, sections. 48-49.
EARL.
"The title of earl had begun to supplant that of ealdorman in
the reign of Ethelred; and the Danish jarl, from whom its use
in this sense was borrowed, seems to have been more certainly
connected by the tie of comitatus with his king than the
Anglo-Saxon ealdorman need be supposed to have been."
William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6, section 66.
See, also, EORL and EALDORMAN.
EARLDOMS, English:
Canute's creation.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.
EARLDOMS:
The Norman change.
See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES.
----------EARLDOMS: End----------
EARLY, General Jubal, Campaigns in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA);
(JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND);
(AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA);
and 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
EARTHQUAKE: B. C. 464.
Sparta.
See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 115.
At Antioch.
See ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 365.
In the Roman world.
"In the second year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens [A.
D. 365], on the morning of the 21st day of July, the greater
part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and
destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the
waters; the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the
sudden retreat of the sea. ... But the tide soon returned with
the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was
severely felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece
and of Egypt. ... The city of Alexandria annually commemorated
the fatal day on which 50,000 persons had lost their lives in
the inundation."
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
{669}
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 526.
In the reign of Justinian.
See ANTIOCH: A. D. 526;
also, BERYTUS.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1692.
In Jamaica.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1755.
At Lisbon.
See LISBON: A. D. 1755.
EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1812.
In Venezuela.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
----------EARTHQUAKE: End----------
EAST AFRICA ASSOCIATIONS, British and German.
See AFRICA: A.. D. 1884-1889.
EAST ANGLIA.
The kingdom formed in Britain by that body of the Angles which
settled in the eastern district now embraced in the counties
of Norfolk and Suffolk (North-folk and South-folk).
EAST INDIA COMPANY,
The Dutch: A. D. 1602.
Its formation and first enterprises.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1652.
Settlement at Cape of Good Hope.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1799.
Its dissolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (DUTCH): End----------
EAST INDIA COMPANY, The English: A. D. 1600-1702.
Its rise and early undertakings.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1773.
Constitution of the Company changed by the Acts of Lord North.
See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1813-1833.-
Deprived of its monopoly of trade.
Reconstitution of government.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1858.
The end of its rule.
See INDIA: A. D. 1858.
----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (ENGLISH): End----------
EAST INDIA COMPANY, The French.
See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
EAST INDIES, Portuguese in the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
EASTERN CHURCH, The.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
EASTERN EMPIRE, The.
See ROME: 717-800;
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
EASTERN QUESTION, The.
"For a number of generations in Europe there has been one
question that, carelessly or maliciously touched upon, has
never failed to stimulate strife and discord among the
nations. This is 'the Eastern Question,' the problem how to
settle the disputes, political and religious, in the east of
Europe."
H. Murdock, The Reconstruction of Europe, page 17.
The first occasion in European politics on which the problems
of the Ottoman empire received the name of the Eastern
Question seems to have been that connected with the revolt of
Mehemet Ali in 1831 (see TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840). M. Guizot,
in his "Memoirs," when referring to that complication, employs
the term, and remarks: "I say the Eastern Question, for this
was in fact the name given by all the world to the quarrel
between the Sultan Mahmoud, and his subject the Pacha of
Egypt, Mehemet Ali. Why was this sounding title applied to a
local contest? Egypt is not the whole Ottoman empire. The
Ottoman empire is not the entire East. The rebellion, even the
dismemberment of a province, cannot comprise the fate of a
sovereignty. The great states of Western Europe have
alternately lost or acquired, either by internal dissension or
war, considerable territories; yet under the aspect of these
circumstances no one has spoken of the Western question. Why
then has a term never used in the territorial crises of
Christian Europe, been considered and admitted to be perfectly
natural and legitimate when the Ottoman empire is in argument?
It is that there is at present in the Ottoman empire no local
or partial question. If a shock is felt in a corner of the
edifice, if a single stone is detached, the entire building
appears to be, and is in fact, ready to fall. ... The Egyptian
question was in 1839 the question of the Ottoman empire
itself. And the question of the Ottoman empire is in reality
the Eastern question, not only of the European but of the
Asiatic East; for Asia is now the theatre of the leading
ambitions and rivalries of the great powers of Europe; and the
Ottoman empire is the highway, the gate, and the key of Asia."
F. P. Guizot, Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own
Time, volume 4, page 322.
The several occasions since 1840 on which the Eastern Question
has troubled Europe may be found narrated under the following
captions:
RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856;
TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877, 1877-1878, and 1878;
also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
Among English writers, the term "the Eastern Question" has
acquired a larger meaning, which takes in questions connected
with the advance of Russia upon the Afghan and Persian
frontiers.
Duke of Argyll, The Eastern Question.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1860-1881.
EATON, Dorman B., and Civil-Service Reform.
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
EBBSDORF, OR LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of.
A great and disastrous battle of the Germans with the Danes,
or Northmen, fought February 2, 880. The Germans were terribly
beaten, and nearly all who survived the fight were swept away
into captivity and slavery. The slain received "martyrs'
honours; and their commemoration was celebrated in the
Sachsen-land churches till comparatively recent times. An
unexampled sorrow was created throughout Saxony by this
calamity, which, for a time, exhausted the country;
--Scandinavia and Jutland and the Baltic isles resounded with
exultation."
Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4.
EBBSFLEET.
The supposed first landing-place in Britain of the Jutes,
under Hengest, A. D. 449 or 450, when English history, as
English, begins. It was also the landing-place, A. D. 597, of
Augustine and his fellow missionaries when they entered the
island to undertake the conversion of its new inhabitants to
Christianity. Ebbsfleet is in the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth
of the Thames.
See ENGLAND: 449-473, and 597-685.
EBERSBURG, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
EBIONISM.
The heresy (so branded) of a sect of Jewish Christians, which
spread somewhat extensively in the second, third and fourth
centuries. "The characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its
forms are: degradation of Christianity to the level of
Judaism; the principle of the universal and perpetual validity
of the Mosaic law; and enmity to the apostle Paul." The name
of the Ebionites came from a Hebrew word signifying "poor."
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
second period, chapter 4, section 68.
{670}
EBLANI, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
EBORACUM, OR EBURACUM.
The military capital of Roman Britain, and afterwards of the
Anglian kingdoms of Deira and Northumbria. In Old English its
name became Eorforwick, whence, by further corruption,
resulted the modern English name York. The city was one of
considerable splendor in Roman times, containing the imperial
palace with many temples and other imposing buildings.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 457-633.
EBURONES, Destruction of the.
The Eburones were a strong Germanic tribe, who occupied in
Cæsar's time the country between Liége and Cologne, and whose
ancestors were said to have formed part of the great migrant
horde of the Cimbri and Teutones. Under a young chief,
Ambiorix, they had taken the lead in the formidable revolt
which occurred among the Belgic tribes, B. C. 54-53. Cæsar,
when he had suppressed the revolt, determined to bring
destruction on the Eburones, and he executed his purpose in a
singular manner. He circulated a proclamation through all the
neighboring parts of Gaul and Germany, declaring the Eburones
to be traitors to Rome and outlaws, and offering them and
their goods as common prey to any who would fall on them. This
drew the surrounding barbarians like vultures to a feast, and
the wretched Eburones were soon hunted out of existence. Their
name disappeared from the annals of Gaul.
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
Cæsar, Gallic Wars,
book 5, chapter 25-58; book 6, chapters 1-34.
G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapters 13-14.
See, also, BELGÆ.
ECBATANA.
"The Southern Ecbatana or Agbatana,--which the Medes and
Persians themselves knew as Hagmatán,--was situated, as we
learn from Polybius and Diodorus, on a plain at the foot of
Mount Orontes, a little to the east of the Zagros range. The
notices of these authors ... and others, render it as nearly
certain as possible that the site was that of the modern town
of Hamadan. ... The Median capital has never yet attracted a
scientific expedition. ... The chief city of northern Media,
which bore in later times the names of Gaza, Gazaca, or
Canzaca, is thought to have been also called Ecbatana, and to
have been occasionally mistaken by the Greeks for the southern
or real capital."
G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.
ECCELINO, OR EZZELINO DI ROMANO,
The tyranny of, and the crusade against.
See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
ECCLESIA.
The general legislative assembly of citizens in ancient Athens
and Sparta.
G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3.
ALSO IN:
G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 31.
See ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
ECENI, OR ICENI, The.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
ECGBERHT, King of Wessex, A. D. 800-836.
ECKMÜHL, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ECNOMUS, Naval battle of (B. C. 256).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ECORCHEURS, Les.
In the later period of the Hundred Years War, after the death
of the Maid of Orleans, when the English were being driven
from France and the authority of the king was not yet
established, lawless violence prevailed widely. "Adventurers
spread themselves over the provinces under a name, 'the
Skinners,' Les Ecorcheurs, which sufficiently betokens the
savage nature of their outrages, if we trace it to even its
mildest derivation, stripping shirts, not skins."
E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 14.
ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS.
See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.
ÉCU, The order of the.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
ECUADOR: Aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
ECUADOR:
The aboriginal kingdom of Quito and its conquest by the
Peruvians and the Spaniards.
"Of the old Quitu nation which inhabited the highlands to the
north and south of the present capital, nothing is known to
tradition but the name of its last king, Quitu, after whom his
subjects were probably called. His domains were invaded and
conquered by the nation of the Caras, or Carans, who had come
by sea in balsas (rafts) from parts unknown. These Caras, or
Carans, established the dynasty of the Scyris at Quito, and
extended their conquests to the north and south, until checked
by the warlike nation of the Puruhas, who inhabited the
present district of Riobamba. ... In the reign of Hualcopo
Duchicela, the 13th Scyri, the Peruvian Incas commenced to
extend their conquests to the north. ... About the middle of
the 15th century the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, father of
Huaynacapac, invaded the dominions of the Scyris, and after
many bloody battles and sieges, conquered the kingdom of
Puruha and returned in triumph to Cuzco. Hualcopo survived his
loss but a few years. He is said to have died of grief, and
was succeeded by his son Cacha, the 15th and last of the
Scyris. Cacha Duchicela at once set out to recover his
paternal dominions. Although of feeble health, he seems to
have been a man of great energy and intrepidity. He fell upon
the garrison which the Inca had left at Mocha, put it to the
sword, and reoccupied the kingdom of Puruha, where he was
received with open arms. He even carried his banners further
south, until checked by the Cañares, the inhabitants of what
is now the district of Cuenca, who had voluntarily submitted
to the Inca, and now detained the Scyri until Huaynacapac, the
greatest of the Inca dynasty, came to their rescue." On the
plain of Tiocajas, and again on the plain of Hatuntaqui, great
battles were fought, in both of which the Scyri was beaten,
and in the last of which he fell. "On the very field of battle
the faithful Caranquis proclaimed Pacha, the daughter of the
fallen king, as their Scyri. Huaynacapac now regulated his
conduct by policy. He ordered the dead king to be buried with
all the honors due to royalty, and made offers of marriage to
young Pacha, by whom he was not refused. ... The issue of the
marriage was Atahuallpa, the last of the native rulers of
Peru. ...
{671}
As prudent and highly politic as the conduct of Huaynacapac is
generally reputed to have been, so imprudent and unpolitic was
the division of the empire which he made on his death bed,
bequeathing his paternal dominions to his first-born and
undoubtedly legitimate son, Huascar, and to Atahuallpa the
kingdom of Quito. He might have foreseen the evil consequences
of such a partition. His death took place about the year 1525.
For five or seven years the brothers lived in peace." Then
quarrels arose, leading to civil war, resulting in the defeat
and death of Huascar. Atahuallpa had just become master of the
weakened and shaken empire of the Incas, when the invading
Spaniards, under Pizarro, fell on the doomed land and made its
riches their own. The conquest of the Spaniards did not
include the kingdom of Quito at first, but was extended to the
latter in 1533 by Sebastian de Benalcazar, whom Pizarro had
put in command of the Port of San Miguel. Excited by stories
of the riches of Quito, and invited by ambassadors from the
Canares, the old enemies of the Quito tribes, Benalcazar,
"without orders or permission from Pizarro ... left San
Miguel, at the head of about 150 men. His second in command
was the monster Juan de Ampudia." The fate of Quito was again
decided on the plain of Tiocajas, where Rumiñagui, a chief who
had seized the vacant throne, made a desperate but vain
resistance. He gained time, however, to remove whatever
treasures there may have been at Quito beyond the reach of its
rapacious conquerors, and "where he hid them is a secret to
the present day. ... Traditions of the great treasures hidden
in the mountains by Rumiñagui are eagerly repeated and
believed at Quito. ... Having removed the gold and killed the
Virgins of the Sun, and thus placed two objects so eagerly
coveted by the invaders beyond their reach, Rumiñagui set fire
to the town, and evacuated it with an his troops and
followers. It would be difficult to describe the rage,
mortification and despair of the Spaniards, on finding smoking
ruins instead of the treasures which they had expected. ...
Thousands of innocent Indians were sacrificed to their
disappointed cupidity. ... Every nook and corner of the
province was searched; but only in the sepulchres some little
gold was found. ... Of the ancient buildings of Quito no stone
was left upon the other, and deep excavations were made under
them to search for hidden treasures. Hence there is no vestige
left at Quito of its former civilization; not a ruin, not a
wall, not a stone to which the traditions of the past might
cling. ... On the 28th of August, 1534, the Spanish village of
Quito [San Francisco de Quito] was founded."
F. Hassaurek, Fours Years among Spanish Americans, chapter 16.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Prescott, History of Conquest of Peru,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1), and chapter 9 (volume 2).
ECUADOR:
In the empire of the Incas.
See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.
ECUADOR: A. D. 1542.
The Audiencia of Quito established.
See AUDIENCIAS.
ECUADOR: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation of slaves.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
ECUADOR: A. D. 1822-1888.
Confederated with New Granada and Venezuela in the Colombian
Republic.
Dissolution of the Confederacy.
The rule of Flores.
In 1822 "the Province of Quito was incorporated into the
Colombian Republic [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830]. It
was now divided into three departments on the French system:
and the southernmost of these received its name from the
Equator (Ecuador) which passes through it. Shortly after
Venezuela had declared itself independent of the Colombian
Republic [1826--see, as above], the old province of Quito did
the same, and placed its fortunes in the hands of one of
Bolivar's lieutenants, named Flores. The name of Ecuador was
now extended to all three departments. Flores exercised the
chief authority for 15 years. The constitution limited the
Presidency to four: but Flores made an arrangement with one of
his lieutenants called Roca-Fuerte, by which they succeeded
each other, the outgoing President becoming governor of
Guayaquil. In 1843 Flores found himself strong enough to
improve upon this system. He called a convention, which
reformed the constitution in a reactionary sense, and named
him dictator for ten years. In 1845 the liberal reaction had
set in all over Colombia; and it soon became too strong for
Flores. Even his own supporters began to fail him, and he
agreed to quit the country on being paid an indemnity of
$20,000." During the next 15 years Ecuador was troubled by the
plots and attempts of Flores to regain his lost power. In
1860, with Peruvian help, he succeeded in placing one of his
party, Dr. Moreno, in the presidency, and he, himself, became
governor of Guayaquil. In August, 1875, Moreno was
assassinated.
E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, pages 251-252.
After the assassination of President Moreno, "the clergy
succeeded in seating Dr. Antonio Barrero in the presidential
chair by a peaceful and overwhelming election. ... Against his
government the liberal party made a revolution, and, September
8, 1876, succeeded in driving him from power, seating in his
place General Ygnacio de Veintemilla, who was one of Barrero's
officers, bound to him by many tics. ... He called an obedient
convention at Ambato, in 1878, which named him President ad
interim, and framed a constitution, the republicanism of which
it is difficult to find. Under this he was elected President
for four years, terminating 30th August, 1882, without right
of re-election except after an interval of four years."
G. E. Church, Report on Ecuador
(Senate Ex. Doc. 69, U. S. 47th Congress, 2d session, volume 3).
President Veintemilla seized power as a Dictator, by a
pronunciamento, April 2, 1882; but civil war ensued and he was
overthrown in 1883. Senor José M. P. Caamaño was then chosen
Provisional President, and in February, 1884, he was elected
President, by the Legislative body. He was succeeded in 1888
by Don Antonio Flores.
Statesman's Year-book, 1889.
----------ECUADOR: End----------
ECUMENICAL, OR ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL.
A general or universal council of the Christian Church.
See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.
EDDAS, The.
"The chief depositories of the Norse mythology are the Elder
or Saemund's Edda (poetry) and the Younger or Snorre's Edda.
(prose). In Icelandic Edda means 'great-grand-mother,' and
some think this appellation refers to the ancient origin of
the myths it contains. Others connect it with the Indian
'Veda' and the Norse 'vide,' (Swedish 'vela,' to know)."
R. B. Anderson, Norse Mythology, chapter 7.
{672}
"The word Edda is never found at all in any of the dialects of
the Old Northern tongue, nor indeed in any other tongue known
to us. The first time it is met with is in the Lay of Righ,
where it is used as a title for great-grandmother, and from
this poem the word is cited (with other terms from the same
source) in the collection at the end of Scaldscaparmal. How or
why Snorri's book on the Poetic Art came to be called Edda we
have no actual testimony. ... Snorri's work, especially the
second part of it, Scaldscaparmal, handed down in copies and
abridgments through the Middle Ages, was looked on as setting
the standard and ideal of poetry. It seems to have kept up
indeed the very remembrance of court-poetry, the memory of
which, but for it, would otherwise have perished. But though
the mediæval poets do not copy Edda (i. e., Snorri's rules)
they constantly allude to it, and we have an unbroken series
of phrases from 1340 to 1640 in which Edda is used as a
synonym for the technical laws of the court-metre (a use, it
may be observed, entirely contrary to that of our own days)."
G. Vigfusson and F. Y. Powell, Corpus Poeticum
Boreale, volume 1, introduction, section 4.
EDESSA (Macedonia).
Edessa, or Ægre, the ancient Macedonian capital, "a place of
primitive antiquity, according to a Phrygian legend the site
of the gardens of Midas, at the northern extremity of Mount
Bermius, where the Lydias comes forth from the mountains. ...
Ægre was the natural capital of the land. With its foundation
the history of Macedonia had its beginning; Ægre is the germ
out of which the Macedonian empire grew."
E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 7, ch 1.
See, also, MACEDONIA.
EDESSA (Mesopotamia).
See OSRHŒNE.
EDESSA: The Church.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.
EDESSA: The Theological School.
Sec NESTORIANS.
EDESSA: A. D. 260.
Battle of.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
EDESSA: A. D. 1097-1144.
The Frank principality.
On the march of the armies of the First Crusade, as they
approached Syria, Baldwin, the able, selfish and self-willed
brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the main body of the
crusaders, with a band of followers, and moved off eastwards,
seeking the prizes of a very worldly ambition, and leaving his
devouter comrades to rescue the holy sepulchre without his
aid. Good fortune rewarded his enterprise and he secured
possession of the important city of Edessa. It was governed by
a Greek prince, who owed allegiance to the Byzantine emperor,
but who paid tribute to the Turks. "It had surrendered to
Pouzan, one of the generals of Malek-shah, in the year 1087,
but during the contests of the Turks and Saracens in the north
of Syria it had recovered its independence. Baldwin now
sullied the honour of the Franks, by exciting the people to
murder their governor Theodore, and rebel against the
Byzantine authority [other historians say that he was guilty
of no more than a passive permission of these acts]; he then
took possession of the place in his own name and founded the
Frank principality of Edessa, which lasted about 47 years."
G. Finlay, History of Byzantine and Greek Empires
A. D. 716-1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
See, also, CRUSADES: A. D, 1006-1099, and 1147-1149;
also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
----------EDESSA: End----------
EDGAR,
King of Scotland, A. D.1098-1107.
Edgar, King of Wessex, A. D. 958-975.
EDGECOTE, Battle of.
See BANBURY, BATTLE OF.
EDGEHILL OR KEYNTON, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
EDHEL
See ADEL.
EDHILING, OR ÆDHILING, The.
See ETHELING.
EDICT OF NANTES, and its revocation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1599, and 1681-1608.
EDICT OF RESTITUTION, The.
See GERMANY: A, D. 1627-1620.
EDICTS, Roman imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
EDINBURGH:
Origin of the city.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
EDINBURGH:11th Century.
Made the capital of Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1003.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1544.
Destroyed by the English.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1559-1560.
Seized by the Lords of the Congregation.
The Treaty of July, 1560.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1572-1573.
n the civil war.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1637.
Laud's Liturgy and the tumult at St. Giles'.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1638.
The signing of the National Covenant.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1650.
Surrender to Cromwell.
Siege and reduction of the Castle.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER);
and 1651 (AUGUST).
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1688.
Rioting and revolution.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1707.
The city at the time of the union.
"Edinburgh, though still but a small town, excited the
admiration of travellers who were acquainted with the greatest
cities of England and the Continent; nor was their admiration
entirely due to the singular beauty of its situation. The
quaint architecture of the older houses--which sometimes rose
to the height of nine, ten or eleven stories--indeed, carried
back the mind to very barbarous times; for it was ascribed to
the desire of the population to live as near as possible to
the protection of the castle. The filth of the streets in the
early years of the 18th century was indescribable. ... The new
quarter, which now strikes every stranger by its spacious
symmetry, was not begun till the latter half of the 18th
century, but as early as 1723 an English traveller described
the High Street as 'the stateliest street in the world.' ...
Under the influence of the Kirk the public manners of the town
were marked by much decorum and even austerity, but the
populace were unusually susceptible of fierce political
enthusiasm, and when excited they were extremely formidable.
... A city guard, composed chiefly of fierce Highlanders,
armed and disciplined like regular soldiers, and placed under
the control of the magistrates, was established in 1606; and
it was not finally abolished till the present century.
Edinburgh, at the beginning of the 18th century, was more than
twice as large as any other Scotch town. Its population at the
time of the union slightly exceeded 30,000, while that of
Glasgow was not quite 15,000, that of Dundee not quite 10,000,
and that of Perth about 7,000."
W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2).
{673}
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.
The Porteous Riot.
"The circumstances of the Porteous Riot are familiar wherever
the English tongue is spoken, because they were made the
dramatic opening of one of his finest stories by that
admirable genius who, like Shakespeare in his plays, has
conveyed to plain men more of the spirit and action of the
past in noble fiction, than they would find in most professed
chronicles of fact. The early scenes of the 'Heart of
Midlothian' are an accurate account of the transaction which
gave so much trouble to Queen Caroline and the minister
[Walpole]. A smuggler who had excited the popular imagination
by his daring and his chivalry was sentenced to be hanged;
after his execution the mob pressed forward to cut down his
body: Porteous, the captain of the City Guard, ordered his men
to fire, and several persons were shot dead: he was tried for
murder, convicted, and sentenced, but at the last moment a
reprieve arrived from London, to the intense indignation of a
crowd athirst for vengeance: four days later, under mysterious
ringleaders who could never afterwards be discovered, fierce
throngs suddenly gathered together at nightfall to the beat of
drum, broke into the prison, dragged out the unhappy Porteous,
and sternly hanged him on a dyer's pole close by the common
place of public execution."
J. Morley, Walpole, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges,
chapter 24 (volume 2).
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1745.
The Young Pretender in the city.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
EDINBURGH: A. D. 1779.
No-Popery riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
----------EDINBURGH: End----------
EDINGTON, OR ETHANDUN, Battle of (A. D.878).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
EDMUND,
King of Wessex, A. D. 940-947.
Edmund Ironside, King of Wessex, A. D. 1016.
EDOMITES, OR lDUMEANS, The.
"From a very early period the Edomites were the chief of the
nations of Arabia Petræa. Amongst the branches sprung,
according to Arab tradition, from the primitive Amalika, they
correspond to the Arcam, and the posterity of Esau, after
settling amongst them as we have seen, became the dominant
family from which the chiefs were chosen. The original
habitation of the Edomites was Mount Seir, whence they spread
over all the country called by the Greeks Gebalene, that is
the prolongation of the mountains joining on the north the
land of Moab, into the Valley of Arabah, and the surrounding
heights. ... Saul successfully fought the Edomites; under
David, Joab and Abishai, his generals, completely defeated
them, and David placed garrisons in their towns. In their
ports of Elath and Eziongeber were built the fleets sent to
India by Hiram and Solomon. ... After the schism of the ten
tribes, the Edomites remained dependent on the King of Judah."
F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 4.
See, also,
NABATHEANS; JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW
HISTORY; and AMALEKITES.
EDRED, King of Wessex, A. D. 947-955.
EDRISITES, The.
After the revolt of Moorish or Mahometan Spain from the
caliphate of Bagdad, the African provinces of the Moslems
assumed independence, and several dynasties became
seated--among them that of the Edrisites, which founded the
city and kingdom of Fez, and which reigned from A. D. 829 to
907.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 52.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
----------EDRISITES: End----------
EDUCATION.
EDUCATION: Ancient.
Egypt.
"In the education of youth [the Egyptians] were particularly
strict; and 'they knew,' says Plato, 'that children ought to
be early accustomed to such gestures, looks, and motions as
are decent and proper; and not to be suffered either to hear
or learn any verses and songs other than those which are
calculated to inspire them with virtue; and they consequently
took care that every dance and ode introduced at their feasts
or sacrifices should be subject to certain regulations.'"
Sir J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs
of the Ancient Egyptians, volume 1. page 321.
"The children were educated according to their station and
their future position in life. They were kept in strict
subjection by their parents, and respect to old age was
particularly inculcated; the children of the priests were
educated very thoroughly in writing of all kinds,
hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic, and in the sciences of
astronomy, mathematics, etc. The Jewish deliverer Moses was
educated after the manner of the priests, and the 'wisdom of
the Egyptians' became a proverbial expression among the
outside nations, as indicating the utmost limit of human
knowledge."
E. A. W. Budge, The Dwellers on the Nile, chapter 10.
"On the education of the Egyptians, Diodorus makes the
following remarks:--'The children of the priests are taught
two different kinds of writing,--what is called the sacred,
and the more general; and they pay great attention to geometry
and arithmetic. For the river, changing the appearance of the
country very materially every year, is the cause of many and
various discussions among neighbouring proprietors about the
extent of their property; and it would be difficult for any
person to decide upon their claims without geometrical
reasoning, founded on actual observation. Of arithmetic they
have also frequent need, both in their domestic economy, and
in the application of geometrical theorems, besides its
utility in the cultivation of astronomical studies; for the
orders and motions of the stars are observed at least as
industriously by the Egyptians as by any people whatever; and
they keep record of the motions of each for an incredible
number of years, the study of this science having been, from
the remotest times, an object of national ambition with them.
... But the generality of the common people learn only from
their parents or relations that which is required for the
exercise of their peculiar professions, ... a few only being
taught anything of literature, and those principally the
better class of artificers.' Hence it appears they were not
confined to any particular rules in the mode of educating
their children, and it depended upon a parent to choose
the degree of instruction he deemed most suitable to their
mode of life and occupations, as among other civilised
nations."
Sir J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of
the Egyptians, volume 1, pages 175-176.
{674}
"There is nothing like being a scribe,' the wise say; 'the
scribe gets all that is upon earth.' ... The scribe is simply
a man who knows how to read and write, to draw up
administrative formulas, and to calculate interest. The
instruction which he has received is a necessary complement of
his position if he belongs to a good family, whilst if he be
poor it enables him to obtain a lucrative situation in the
administration or at the house of a wealthy personage. There
is, therefore, no sacrifice which the smaller folk deem too
great, if it enables them to give their sons the acquirements
which may raise them above the common people, or at least
insure a less miserable fate. If one of them, in his infancy,
displays any intelligence, they send him, when about six or
eight years old, to the district school, where an old
pedagogue teaches him the rudiments of reading, writing, and
arithmetic. Towards ten or twelve years old, they withdraw him
from the care of this first teacher and apprentice him to a
scribe in some office, who undertakes to make him a 'learned
scribe.' The child accompanies his master to his office or
work-yard, and there passes entire months in copying letters,
circulars, legal documents, or accounts, which he does not at
first understand, but which he faithfully remembers. There are
books for his use full of copies taken from well-known
authors, which he studies perpetually. If he requires a brief,
precise report, this is how Ennana worded one of his:--'I
reached Elephantine and accomplished my mission. I reviewed
the infantry and the chariot soldiers from the temples, as
well as the servants and subordinates who are in the houses of
Pharaoh's ... officials. As my journey is for the purpose of
making a report in the presence of his Majesty, ... the course
of my business is as rapid as that of the Nile; you need not,
therefore, feel anxious about me.' There is not a superfluous
word. If, on the other hand, a petition in a poetical style be
required, see how Pentoïrit asked for a holiday. 'My heart has
left me, it is travelling and does not know how to return, it
sees Memphis and hastens there. Would that I were in its
place. I remain here, busy following my heart, which
endeavours to draw me towards Memphis. I have no work in hand,
my heart is tormented. May it please the god Ptah to lead me
to Memphis, and do thou grant that I may be seen walking
there. I am at leisure, my heart is watching, my heart is no
longer in my bosom, languor has seized my limbs; my eye is
dim, my ear hardened, my voice feeble, it is a failure of all
my strength. I pray thee remedy all this.' The pupil copies
and recopies, the master inserts forgotten words, corrects the
faults of spelling, and draws on the margin the signs or
groups unskilfully traced. When the book is duly finished and
the apprentice can write all the formulas from memory,
portions of phrases are detached from them, which he must join
together, so as to combine new formulas; the master then
entrusts him with the composition of a few letters, gradually
increasing the number and adding to the difficulties. As soon
as he has fairly mastered the ordinary daily routine his
education is ended, and an unimportant post is sought for. He
obtains it and then marries, becoming the head of a family,
sometimes before he is twenty years old; he has no further
ambition, but is content to vegetate quietly in the obscure
circle where fate has thrown him."
G. Maspéro, Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria, chapter 1.
"In the schools, where the poor scribe's child sat on the
same bench beside the offspring of the rich, to be trained in
discipline and wise learning, the masters knew how by timely
words to goad on the lagging diligence of the ambitious
scholars, by holding out to them the future reward which
awaited youths skilled in knowledge and letters. Thus the
slumbering spark of self-esteem was stirred to a flame in the
youthful breast, and emulation was stimulated among the boys.
The clever son of the poor man, too, might hope by his
knowledge to climb the ladder of the higher offices, for
neither his birth nor position raised any barrier, if only
the youth's mental power justified fair hopes for the future.
In this sense, the restraints of caste did not exist, and
neither descent nor family hampered the rising career of the
clever. Many a monument consecrated to the memory of some
nobleman gone to his long home, who during life had held high
rank at the court of Pharaoh, is decorated with the simple
but laudatory inscription, 'His ancestors were unknown
people.' It is a satisfaction to avow that the training and
instruction of the young interested the Egyptians in the
highest degree. For they fully recognised in this the sole
means of cultivating their national life, and of fulfilling
the high civilizing mission which Providence seemed to have
placed in their hands. But above all things they regarded
justice, and virtue had the highest price in their eyes."
H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the
Pharaohs, volume 1, page 22.
EDUCATION:
Babylonia and Assyria.
"The primitive Chaldeans were pre-eminently a literary people,
and it is by their literary relics, by the scattered contents
of their libraries, that we can know and judge them. As
befitted the inventors of a system of writing, like the
Chinese they set the highest value on education, even though
examinations may have been unknown among them. Education,
however, was widely diffused. ... Assur-bani-pal's library was
open to the use and enjoyment of all his subjects, and the
syllabaries, grammars, lexicons, and reading-books that it
contained, show the extent to which not only their own
language was studied by the Assyrians, but the dead language
of ancient Accad as well. It became as fashionable to compose
in this extinct tongue as it is now-a-days to display one's
proficiency in Latin prose, and 'dog-Accadian' was perpetrated
with as little remorse as 'dog-Latin' at the present time. One
of the Babylonian cylinders found by General di Cesnola in the
temple-treasure of Kurium, which probably belongs to the
period of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, has a legend which
endeavours to imitate the inscriptions of the early Accadian
princes; but the very first word, by an unhappy error, betrays
the insufficient knowledge of the old language possessed by
its composer. Besides a knowledge of Accadian, the educated
Assyrian was required to have also a knowledge of Aramaic,
which had now become the 'lingua franca' of trade and
diplomacy; and we find the Rabshakeh (Rab-sakki), or prime
minister, who was sent against Hezekiah by Sennacherib,
acquainted with Hebrew as well.
{675}
The grammatical and lexical works in the library of
Nineveh are especially interesting, as being the earliest
attempts of the kind of which we know, and it is curious to
find the Hamiltonian method of learning languages forestalled
by the scribes of Assur-bani-pal. In this case, as in all
others, the first enquiries into the nature of speech, and the
first grammars and dictionaries, were due to the necessity of
comparing two languages together; it was the Accadian which
forced the Semitic Assyrian or Babylonian to study his own
tongue. And already in these first efforts the main principles
of Semitic grammar are laid down clearly and definitely."
A. H. Sayce, Babylonian Literature, pages 71-72.
"The Babylonians were the Chinese of the ancient world. They
were essentially a reading and writing people. ... The books
were for the most part written upon clay with a wooden reed or
metal stylus, for clay was cheap and plentiful, and easily
impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of which the characters
were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and possibly also
parchment were employed as writing materials. ... The use of
clay for writing purposes extended, along with Babylonian
culture, to the neighbouring populations of the East. ... It
is astonishing how much matter can be compressed into the
compass of a single tablet: The cuneiform system of writing
allowed the use of many abbreviations--thanks to its
'ideographic' nature--and the characters were frequently of a
very minute size. Indeed, so minute is the writing on many of
the Assyrian (as distinguished from the Babylonian) tablets
that it is clear not only that the Assyrian scribes and
readers must have been decidedly short-sighted, but also that
they must have made use of magnifying glasses. We need not be
surprised, therefore, to learn that Sir A. H. Layard
discovered a crystal lens, which had been turned on a lathe,
upon the site of the great library of Nineveh. ... To learn
the cuneiform syllabary was a task of much time and labour.
The student was accordingly provided with various means of
assistance. The characters of the syllabary were classified
and named; they were further arranged according to a certain
order, which partly depended on the number of wedges or lines
of which each was composed. Moreover, what we may term
dictionaries were compiled. ... To learn the signs, however,
with their multitudinous phonetic values and ideographic
significations, was not the whole of the labour which the
Babylonian boy had to accomplish. The cuneiform system of
writing, along with the culture which had produced it, had
been the invention of the non-Semitic Accado-Sumerian race,
from whom it had been borrowed by the Semites. In Semitic
hands the syllabary underwent further modifications and
additions, but it bore upon it to the last the stamp of its
alien origin. On this account alone, therefore, the Babylonian
student who wished to acquire a knowledge of reading and
writing was obliged to learn the extinct language of the older
population of the country. There was, however, another reason
which even more imperatively obliged him to study the earlier
tongue. A large proportion of the ancient literature, more
especially that which related to religious subjects, was
written in Accado-Sumerian. Even the law-cases of earlier
times, which formed precedents for the law of a later age,
were in the same language. In fact, Accado-Sumerian stood in
much the same relation to the Semitic Babylonians that Latin
has stood to the modern inhabitants of Europe. ... Besides
learning the syllabary, therefore, the Babylonian boy had to
learn the extinct of Accad and Sumer. ... The study of foreign
tongues naturally brought with it an inquisitiveness about the
languages of other people, as well as a passion for etymology.
... But there were other things besides languages which the
young student in the schools of Babylonia and Assyria was
called upon to learn. Geography, history, the names and nature
of plants, birds, animals, and stones, as well as the elements
of law and religion, were all objects of instruction. The
British Museum possesses what may be called the historical
exercise of some Babylonian lad in the age of Nebuchadnezzar
or Cyrus, consisting of a list of the kings belonging to one
of the early dynasties, which he had been required to learn by
heart. ... A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of
Babylonia could read and write. The contract tablets are
written in a variety of running hands, some of which are as
bad as the worst that passes through the modern post. Every
legal document required the signatures of a number of
witnesses, and most of these were able to write their own
names. ... In Assyria, however, education was by no means so
widely spread. Apart from the upper and professional classes,
including the men of business, it was confined to a special
body of men--the public scribes. ... There was none of that
jealous exclusion of women in ancient Babylonia which
characterizes the East of today, and it is probable that boys
and girls pursued their studies at the same schools. The
education of a child must have begun early."
A. H. Sayce, Social Life among the Babylonians, chapter 3.
EDUCATION:
China.
"It is not, perhaps, generally known that Peking contains an
ancient university; for, though certain buildings connected
with it have been frequently described, the institution itself
has been but little noticed. It gives, indeed, so few signs of
life that it is not surprising it should be overlooked. ... If
a local situation be deemed an essential element of identity,
this old university must yield the palm of age to many in
Europe, for in its present site it dates, at most, only from
the Yuen, or Mongol, dynasty, in the beginning of the
fourteenth century. But as an imperial institution, having a
fixed organization and definite objects, it carries its
history, or at least its pedigree, back to a period far
anterior to the founding of the Great Wall. Among the
Regulations of the House of Chow, which flourished a thousand
years before the Christian era, we meet with it already in
full-blown vigor, and under the identical name which it now
bears, that of Kwotszekien, or 'School for the Sons of the
Empire.' It was in its glory before the light of science
dawned on Greece, and when Pythagoras and Plato were pumping
their secrets from the priests of Heliopolis. And it still
exists, but it is only an embodiment of 'life in death:' its
halls are tombs, and its officers living mummies. In the 13th
Book of the Chowle (see Rites de Tcheou, traduction par
Édouard Biot), we find the functions of the heads of the
Kwotszekien laid down with a good deal of minuteness.
{676}
The presidents were to admonish the Emperor of that which is
good and just, and to instruct the Sons of the State in the
'three constant virtues' and the 'three practical duties'--in
other words, to give a course of lectures on moral philosophy.
The vice-presidents were to reprove the Emperor for his faults
(i. e., to perform the duty of official censors) and to
discipline the Sons of the State in the sciences and
arts--viz., in arithmetic, writing, music, archery,
horsemanship and ritual ceremonies. ... The old curriculum is
religiously adhered to, but greater latitude is given, as we
shall have occasion to observe, to the term 'Sons of the
State.' In the days of Chow, this meant the heir-apparent,
princes of the blood, and children of the nobility. Under the
Tatsing dynasty it signifies men of defective scholarship
throughout the provinces, who purchase literary degrees, and
more specifically certain indigent students of Peking, who are
aided by the imperial bounty. The Kwotszekien is located in
the northeastern angle of the Tartar city, with a temple of
Confucius attached, which is one of the finest in the Empire.
The main edifice (that of the temple) consists of a single
story of imposing height, with a porcelain roof of tent-like
curvature. ... It contains no seats, as all comers are
expected to stand or kneel in presence of the Great Teacher.
Neither does it boast anything in the way of artistic
decoration, nor exhibit any trace of that neatness and taste
which we look for in a sacred place. Perhaps its vast area is
designedly left to dust and emptiness, in order that nothing
may intervene to disturb the mind in the contemplation of a
great name which receives the homage of a nation. ... In an
adjacent block or square stands a pavilion known as the
'Imperial Lecture-room,' because it is incumbent on each
occupant of the Dragon throne to go there at least once in his
life-time to hear a discourse on the nature and
responsibilities of his office. ... A canal spanned by marble
bridges encircles the pavilion, and arches of glittering
porcelain, in excellent repair, adorn the grounds. But neither
these nor the pavilion itself constitutes the chief attraction
of the place. Under a long corridor which encloses the entire
space may be seen as many as one hundred and eighty-two
columns of massive granite, each inscribed with a portion of
the canonical books. These are the 'Stone Classics'--the
entire 'Thirteen,' which formed the staple of a Chinese
education, being here enshrined in a material supposed to be
imperishable. Among all the Universities in the world, the
Kwotszekien is unique in the possession of such a library.
This is not, indeed, the only stone library extant--another of
equal extent being found at Singanfu, the ancient capital of
the Tangs. But, that too, was the property of the Kwotszekien
ten centuries ago, when Singan was the seat of empire. The
'School for the Sons of the Empire' must needs follow the
migrations of the court; and that library, costly as it was,
being too heavy for transportation, it was thought best to
supply its place by the new edition which we have been
describing. ... In front of the temple stands a forest of
columns of scarcely inferior interest. They are three hundred
and twenty in number, and contain the university roll of
honor, a complete list of all who since the founding of the
institution have attained to the dignity of the doctorate.
Allow to each an average of two hundred names, and we have an
army of doctors sixty thousand strong! (By the doctorate I
mean the third or highest degree.) All these received their
investiture at the Kwotszekien, and, throwing themselves at
the feet of its president, enrolled themselves among the 'Sons
of the Empire.' They were not, however--at least the most of
them were not--in any proper sense alumni of the Kwotszekien,
having pursued their studies in private, and won their honors
by public competition in the halls of the Civil-service
Examining Board. ... There is an immense area occupied by
lecture-rooms, examination-halls and lodging-apartments. But
the visitor is liable to imagine that these, too, are
consecrated to a monumental use--so rarely is a student or a
professor to be seen among them. Ordinarily they are as
desolate as the halls of Baalbec or Palmyra. In fact, this
great school for the 'Sons of the Empire' has long ceased to
be a seat of instruction, and degenerated into a mere
appendage of the civil-service competitive examinations on
which it hangs as a dead weight, corrupting and debasing
instead of advancing the standard of national education."
W. A. P. Martin, The Chinese, their Education,
Philosophy and Letters, pages 85-90.
EDUCATION:
Persia.
"All the best authorities are agreed that great pains were
taken by the Persians--or, at any rate, by those of the
leading clans--in the education of their sons. During the
first five years of his life the boy remained wholly with the
women, and was scarcely, if at all, seen by his father. After
that time his training commenced. He was expected to rise
before dawn, and to appear at a certain spot, where he was
exercised with other boys of his age in running, slinging
stones, shooting with the bow, and throwing the javelin. At
seven he was taught to ride, and soon afterward he was allowed
to begin to hunt. The riding included, not only the ordinary
management of the horse, but the power of jumping on and off
his back when he was at speed, and of shooting with the bow
and throwing the javelin with unerring aim, while the horse
was still at full gallop. The hunting was conducted by
state-officers, who aimed at forming by its means in the
youths committed to their charge all the qualities needed in
war. The boys were made to bear extremes of heat and cold, to
perform long marches, to cross rivers without wetting their
weapons, to sleep in the open air at night, to be content with
a single meal in two days, and to support themselves
occasionally on the wild products of the country, acorns, wild
pears and the fruit of the terebinth tree. On days when there
was no hunting they passed their mornings in athletic
exercises, and contests with the bow or the javelin, after
which they dined simply on the plain food mentioned above as
that of the men in the early times, and then employed
themselves during the afternoon in occupations regarded as not
illiberal--for instance, in the pursuits of agriculture,
planting, digging for roots, and the like, or in the
construction of arms and hunting implements, such as nets and
springes. Hardy and temperate habits being secured by this
training, the point of morals on which their preceptors mainly
insisted was the rigid observance of truth. Of intellectual
education they had but little. It seems to have been no part
of the regular training of a Persian youth that he should
learn to read.
{677}
He was given religious notions and a certain amount of moral
knowledge by means of legendary poems, in which the deeds of
gods and heroes were set before him by his teachers, who
recited or sung them in his presence, and afterwards required
him to repeat what he had heard, or, at any rate, to give some
account of it. This education continued for fifteen years,
commencing when the boy was five, and terminating when he
reached the age of twenty. The effect of this training was to
render the Persian an excellent soldier and a most
accomplished horseman. ... At fifteen years of age the Persian
was considered to have attained to manhood, and was enrolled
in the ranks of the army, continuing liable to military
service from that time till he reached the age of fifty. Those
of the highest rank became the body-guard of the king, and
these formed the garrison of the capital. ... Others, though
liable to military service, did not adopt arms as their
profession, but attached themselves to the Court and looked to
civil employment, as satraps, secretaries, attendants, ushers,
judges, inspectors, messengers. ... For trade and commerce the
Persians were wont to express extreme contempt."
G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient
Eastern World, volume 3, pages 238-242.
After the death of Cyrus, according to Xenophon, the Persians
degenerated, in the education of their youth and otherwise.
"To educate the youth at the gates of the palace is still the
custom," he says; "but the attainment and practice of
horsemanship are extinct, because they do not go where they
can gain applause by exhibiting skill in that exercise.
Whereas, too, in former times, the boys, hearing causes justly
decided there, were considered by that means to learn justice,
that custom is altogether altered; for they now see those gain
their causes who offer the highest bribes. Formerly, also,
boys were taught the virtues of the various productions of the
earth, in order that they might use the serviceable, and avoid
the noxious; but now they seem to be taught those particulars
that they may do as much harm as possible; at least there are
nowhere so many killed or injured by poison as in that
country."
Xenophon, Cyropædia and Hellenics; trans. by J. S.
Watson and H. Dale, pages 284-285.
EDUCATION:
Judæa.
"According to the statement of Josephus, Moses had already
prescribed 'that boys should learn the most important laws,
because that is the best knowledge and the cause of
prosperity.' 'He commanded to instruct children in the
elements of knowledge (reading and writing), to teach them to
walk according to the laws, and to know the deeds of their
forefathers. The latter, that they might imitate them; the
former, that growing up with the laws they might not
transgress them, nor have the excuse of ignorance.' Josephus
repeatedly commends the zeal with which the instruction of the
young was carried on. 'We take most pains of all with the
instruction of children, and esteem the observance of the laws
and the piety corresponding with them the most important
affair of our whole life.' 'If anyone should question one of
us concerning the laws, he would more easily repeat all than
his own name. Since we learn them from our first
consciousness, we have them, as it were, engraven on our
souls; and a transgression is rare, but the averting of
punishment impossible.' In like manner does Philo express
himself: 'Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine
revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from
their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law in their
souls.' ... In view of all this testimony it cannot be
doubted, that in the circles of genuine Judaism boys were from
their tenderest childhood made acquainted with the demands of
the law. That this education in the law was, in the first
place, the duty and task of parents is self-evident. But it
appears, that even in the age of Christ, care was also taken
for the instruction of youth by the erection of schools on the
part of the community. ... The later tradition that Joshua ben
Gamla (Jesus the son of Gamaliel) enacted that teachers of
boys ... should be appointed in every province and in every
town, and that children of the age of six or seven should be
brought to them, is by no means incredible. The only Jesus the
son of Gamaliel known to history is the high priest of that
name, about 63-65 after Christ. ... It must therefore be he
who is intended in the above notice. As his measures
presuppose a somewhat longer existence of boys' schools, we
may without hesitation transfer them to the age of Christ,
even though not as a general and established institution. The
subject of instruction, as already appears from the above
passages of Josephus and Philo, was as good as exclusively the
law. For only its inculcation in the youthful mind, and not
the means of general education, was the aim of all this zeal
for the instruction of youth. And indeed the earliest
instruction was in the reading and inculcation of the text of
scripture. ... Habitual practice went hand in hand with
theoretical instruction. For though children were not actually
bound to fulfil the law, they were yet accustomed to it from
their youth up."
E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the time of
Jesus Christ, volume 2, pages 47-50.
In the fourth century B. C. the Council of Seventy Elders
"instituted regularly appointed readings from the Law; on
every sabbath and on every week day a portion from the
Pentateuch was to be read to the assembled congregation. Twice
a week, when the country people came up from the villages to
market in the neighbouring towns, or to appeal at the courts
of justice, some verses of the Pentateuch, however few, were
read publicly. At first only the learned were allowed to read,
but at last it was looked upon as so great an honour to belong
to the readers, that everyone attempted or desired to do so.
Unfortunately the characters in which the Torah was written
were hardly readable. Until that date the text of the Torah
had been written in the ancient style with Phœnician or old
Babylonian characters, which could only be deciphered by
practised scribes. ... From the constant reading of the Law,
there arose among the Judæans an intellectual activity and
vigour, which at last gave a special character to the whole
nation. The Torah became their spiritual and intellectual
property, and their own inner sanctuary. At this time there
sprang up other important institutions, namely, schools, where
the young men could stimulate their ardour and increase their
knowledge of the Law and its teachings. The intellectual
leaders of the people continually enjoined on the rising
generation, 'Bring up a great many disciples.' And what they
enjoined so strenuously they themselves must have assisted to
accomplish. One of these religious schools (Beth-Waad) was
probably established in Jerusalem.
{678}
The teachers were called scribes (sopherim) or wise men; the
disciples, pupils of the wise (Talmude Chachamim). The wise
men or scribes had a two-fold work; on the one hand they had
to explain the Torah, and on the other, to make the laws
applicable to each individual and to the community at large.
This supplementary interpretation was called 'explanation'
(Midrash); it was not altogether arbitrary, but rested upon
certain rules laid down for the proper interpretation of the
law. The supreme council and the houses of learning worked
together, and one completed the other. A hardly perceptible,
but most important movement was the result; for the
descendants of the Judæans of that age were endowed with a
characteristic, which they might otherwise have claimed as
inborn, the talent for research and the intellectual
penetration, needed for turning and returning words and data,
in order to discover some new and hidden meaning."
H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 1, chapter 20.
EDUCATION:
Schools of the Prophets.
"In his [Samuel's] time we first hear of what in modern
phraseology are called the Schools of the Prophets. Whatever
be the precise meaning of the peculiar word, which now came
first into use as the designation of these companies, it is
evident that their immediate mission consisted in uttering
religious hymns or songs, accompanied by musical
instruments--psaltery, tabret, pipe and harp, and cymbals. In
them, as in the few solitary instances of their predecessors,
the characteristic element was that the silent seer of visions
found an articulate voice, gushing forth in a rhythmical flow,
which at once riveted the attention of the hearer. These, or
such as these, were the gifts which under Samuel were now
organized, if one may say so, into a system."
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish
Church, lecture 18.
EDUCATION:
Greece.
A description of the Athenian education of the young is given
by Plato in one of his dialogues: "Education," he says, "and
admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last
to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor
are quarrelling about the improvement of the child as soon as
ever he is able to understand them: he cannot say or do
anything without their setting forth to him that this is just
and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable;
this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that.
And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by
threats and blows, like a piece of warped wood. At a later
stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his
manners even more than to his reading and music; and the
teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned
his letters and is beginning to understand what is written·,
as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into
his hands the works of great poets, which he reads at school;
in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and
praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is
required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or
emulate them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the
teachers of the lyre take similar care that their young
disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they
have taught him the use of the lyre, they introduce him to the
poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets; and
these they set to music, and make their harmonies and rhythms
quite familiar to the children, in order that they may learn
to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more
fitted for speech and action; for the life of men in every
part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to
the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better
minister to the virtuous mind, and that the weakness of their
bodies may not force them to play the coward in war or on any
other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the
means, and those who have the means are the rich; their
children begin education soonest and leave off latest. When
they have done with masters, the state again compels them to
learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish,
and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to
write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for
the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and
makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which
were the invention of good law-givers who were of old times;
these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his
conduct whether as ruler or ruled; and he who transgresses
them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to
account, which is a term used not only in your country, but
also in many others. Now when there is all this care about
virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder
and doubt whether virtue can be taught?"
Plato, Protagoras (Dialogue; trans. by Jowett, volume 1).
The ideas of Aristotle on the subject are in the following:
"There can be no doubt that children should be taught those
useful things which are really necessary, but not all thing's;
for occupations are divided into liberal and illiberal; and to
young children should be imparted only such kinds of knowledge
as will be useful to them without vulgarizing them. And any
occupation, art, or science, which makes the body or soul or
mind of the freeman less fit for the practice or exercise of
virtue, is vulgar; wherefore we call those arts vulgar which
tend to deform the body, and likewise all paid employments,
for they absorb and degrade the mind. There are also some
liberal arts quite proper for a freeman to acquire, but only
in a certain degree, and if he attend to them too closely, in
order to obtain perfection in them, the same evil effects will
follow. The object also which a man sets before him makes a
great difference; if he does or learns anything for his own
sake or for the sake of his friends, or with a view to
excellence, the action will not appear illiberal; but if done
for the sake of others, the very same action will be thought
menial and servile. The received subjects of instruction, as I
have already remarked, are partly of a liberal and partly of
an illiberal character. The customary branches of education
are in number four; they are--(l) reading and writing, (2)
gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added
(4) drawing. Of these, reading and writing and drawing are
regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of
ways, and gymnastic exercises are thought to infuse courage.
Concerning music a doubt may be raised--in our own day most
men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it
was included in education, because nature herself, as has been
often said, requires that we should be able, not only to work
well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and
again, the first principle of all action is leisure.
{679}
Both are required, but leisure is better than occupation; and
therefore the question must be asked in good earnest, what
ought we to do when at leisure? Clearly we ought not to be
amusing ourselves, for then amusement would be the end of
life. But if this is inconceivable, and yet amid serious
occupations amusement is needed more than at other times (for
he who is hard at work has need of relaxation, and amusement
gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied
with exertion and effort), at suitable times we should
introduce amusements, and they should be our medicines, for
the emotion which they create in the soul is a relaxation, and
from the pleasure we obtain rest. ... It is clear then that
there are branches of learning and education which we must
study with a view to the enjoyment of leisure, and these are
to be valued for their own sake; whereas those kinds of
knowledge which are useful in business are to be deemed
necessary, and exist for the sake of other things. And
therefore our fathers admitted music into education, not on
the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not
necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and
writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management
of a house-hold, in the acquisition of knowledge and in
political life, nor like drawing, useful for a more correct
judgment of the works of artists, nor again like gymnastic,
which gives health and strength; for neither of these is to be
gained from music. There remains, then, the use of music for
intellectual enjoyment in leisure; which appears to have been
the reason of its introduction, this being one of the ways in
which it is thought that a freeman should pass his leisure.
... We are now in a position to say that the ancients witness
to us; for their opinion may be gathered from the fact that
music is one of the received and traditional branches of
education. Further, it is clear that children should be
instructed in some useful things,--for example, in reading and
writing,--not only for their usefulness, but also because many
other sorts of knowledge are acquired through them. With a
like view they may be taught drawing, not to prevent their
making mistakes in their own purchases, or in order that they
may not be imposed upon in the buying or selling of articles,
but rather because it makes them judges of the beauty of the
human form. To be always seeking after the useful does not
become free and exalted souls. ... We reject the professional
instruments and also the professional mode of education in
music--and by professional we mean that which is adopted in
contests, for in this the performer practises the art, not for
the sake of his own improvement, but in order to give
pleasure, and that of a vulgar sort, to his hearers. For this
reason the execution of such music is not the part of a
freeman but of a paid performer, and the result is that the
performers are vulgarized, for the end at which they aim is
bad."
Aristotle, Politics (Jowett's Translation), book 8.
"The most striking difference between early Greek education
and ours was undoubtedly this; that the physical development
of boys was attended to in a special place and by a special
master. It was not thought sufficient for them to play the
chance games of childhood; they underwent careful bodily
training under a very fixed system, which was determined by
the athletic contests of after life. ... When we compare what
the Greeks afforded to their boys, we find it divided into two
contrasted kinds of exercise: hunting, which was practised by
the Spartans very keenly, and no doubt also by the Eleans and
Arcadians, as may be seen from Xenophon's 'Tract on (Hare)
Hunting'; and gymnastics, which in the case of boys were
carried on in the so-caned palæstra, a sort of open-air
gymnasium (in our sense) kept by private individuals as a
speculation, and to which the boys were sent, as they were to
their ordinary school-master. We find that the Spartans, who
had ample scope for hunting with dogs in the glens and coverts
of Mount Taygetus, rather despised mere exercises of dexterity
in the palæstra, just as our sportsmen would think very little
of spending hours in a gymnasium. But those Greeks who lived
in towns like Athens, and in the midst of a thickly populated
and well-cultivated country, could not possibly obtain
hunting, and therefore found the most efficient substitute.
Still we find them very far behind the English in their
knowledge or taste for out-of-door games. ... The Greeks had
no playgrounds beyond the palæstra or gymnasium; they had no
playgrounds in our sense, and though a few proverbs speak of
swimming as a universal accomplishment which boys learned, the
silence of Greek literature on the subject makes one very
suspicious as to the generality of such training. ... In one
point, certainly, the Greeks agreed more with the modern
English than with any other civilised nation. They regarded
sport as a really serious thing. ... The names applied to the
exercising-places indicate their principal uses. Palæstra
means a wrestling place; gymnasium originally a place for
naked exercise, but the word early lost this connotation and
came to mean mere physical training. ... In order to leave
home and reach the palæstra safely as well as to return, Greek
boys were put under the charge of a pædagogue, in no way to be
identified (as it now is) with a schoolmaster. ... I think we
may be justified in asserting that the study of the epic
poets, especially of the Iliad and Odyssey, was the earliest
intellectual exercise of schoolboys, and, in the case of
fairly educated parents, even anticipated the learning of
letters. For the latter is never spoken of as part of a
mother's or of home education. Reading was not so universal or
so necessary as it now is. ... We may assume that books of
Homer were read or recited to growing boys, and that they were
encouraged or required to learn them off by heart. This is
quite certain to all who estimate justly the enormous
influence ascribed to Homer, and the principles assumed by the
Greeks to have underlain his work. He was universally
considered to be a moral teacher, whose characters were drawn
with a moral intent, and for the purpose of example or
avoidance. ... Accordingly the Iliad and Odyssey were supposed
to contain all that was useful, not only for godliness, but
for life. All the arts and sciences were to be derived (by
interpretation) from these sacred texts. ... In early days,
and in poor towns, the place of teaching was not well
appointed, nay, even in many places, teaching in the open air
prevailed. ... This was ... like the old hedge schools of
Ireland, and no doubt of Scotland too. They also took
advantage, especially in hot weather, of colonnades, or shady
corners among public buildings, as at Winchester the summer
term was called cloister-time, from a similar practice, even
in that wealthy foundation, of instructing in the cloisters.
On the other hand, properly appointed schools in respectable
towns were furnished with some taste, and according to
traditional notions. ...
{680}
We may be sure that there were no tables or desks, such
furniture being unusual in Greek houses; it was the universal
custom, while reading or writing, to hold the book or roll on
the knee--to us an inconvenient thing to do, but still common
in the East. There are some interesting sentences, given for
exercise in Greek and Latin, in the little known
'Interpretamenta' of Dositheus, now edited and explained by
German scholars. The entry of the boy is thus described, in
parallel Greek and Latin: 'First I salute the master, who
returns my salute: Good morning, master; good morning, school
fellows. Give me my place, my seat, my stool. Sit closer. Move
up that way. This is my place, I took it first.' This mixture
of politeness and wrangling is amusing, and no doubt to be
found in all ages. It seems that the seats were movable. ...
The usual subdivision of education was into three parts;
letters, ... including reading, writing, counting, and
learning of the poets; music in the stricter sense, including
singing and playing on the lyre; and lastly gymnastic, which
included dancing. ... It is said that at Sparta the education
in reading and writing was not thought necessary, and there
have been long discussions among the learned whether the
ordinary Spartan in classical days was able to read. We find
that Aristotle adds a fourth subject to the three above
named--drawing, which he thinks requisite, like music, to
enable the educated man to judge rightly of works of art. But
there is no evidence of a wide diffusion of drawing or
painting among the Greeks, as among us. ... Later on, under
the learned influences of Alexandria, and the paid
professoriate of Roman days, subjects multiplied with the
decline of mental vigour and spontaneity of the age, and
children began to be pestered, as they now are, with a
quantity of subjects, all thought necessary to a proper
education, and accordingly all imperfectly acquired. This was
called the encyclical education, which is preserved in our
Encyclopædia of knowledge. It included,(1) grammar,(2)
rhetoric, (3) dialectic, (4) arithmetic, (5) music, (6)
geometry, (7) astronomy, and these were divided into the
earlier Trivium, and the later Quadrivium."
J. P. Mahaffy, Old Greek Education, chapters 3-5.
"Reading was taught with the greatest pains, the utmost care
was taken with the intonation of the voice, and the
articulation of the throat. We have lost the power of
distinguishing between accent and quantity. The Greeks did not
acquire it without long and anxious training of the ear and
the vocal organs. This was the duty of the phonascus. Homer
was the common study of all Greeks. The Iliad and Odyssee were
at once the Bible, the Shakespeare, the Robinson Crusoe, and
the Arabian Nights of the Hellenic race. Long passages and
indeed whole books were learnt by heart. The Greek, as a rule,
learnt no language but his own. Next to reading and repetition
came writing, which was carefully taught. Composition
naturally followed, and the burden of correcting exercises,
which still weighs down the backs of schoolmasters, dates from
these early times. Closely connected with reading and writing
is the art of reckoning, and the science of numbers leads us
easily to music. Plato considered arithmetic as the best spur
to a sleepy and uninstructed spirit; we see from the Platonic
dialogues how mathematical problems employed the mind and
thoughts of young Athenians. Many of the more difficult
arithmetical operations were solved by geometrical methods,
but the Greeks carried the art of teaching numbers to
considerable refinement. They used the abacus, and had an
elaborate method of finger reckoning, which was serviceable up
to 10,000. Drawing was the crowning accomplishment to this
vestibule of training. By the time the fourteenth year was
completed, the Greek boy would have begun to devote himself
seriously to the practice of athletics."
O. Browning, An Introduction to the History of
Educational Theories, ch 1.
"It has sometimes been imagined that in Greece separate
edifices were not erected as with us expressly for
school-houses, but that both the didaskalos and the
philosopher taught their pupils in fields, gardens or shady
groves. But this was not the common practice, though many
schoolmasters appear to have had no other place wherein to
assemble their pupils than the portico of a temple or some
sheltered corner in the street, where in spite of the din of
business and the throng of passengers the worship of learning
was publicly performed. ... But these were the schools of the
humbler classes. For the children of the noble and the opulent
spacious structures were raised, and furnished with tables,
desks,--for that peculiar species of grammateion which
resembled the plate cupboard, can have been nothing but a
desk,--forms, and whatsoever else their studies required.
Mention is made of a school at Chios which contained one
hundred and twenty boys, all of whom save one were killed by
the falling in of the roof. ... The apparatus of an ancient
school was somewhat complicated: there were mathematical
instruments, globes, maps, and charts of the heavens, together
with boards whereon to trace geometrical figures, tablets,
large and small, of box-wood, fir, or ivory, triangular in
form, some folding with two, and others with many leaves;
books too and paper, skins of parchment, wax for covering the
tablets, which, if we may believe Aristophanes, people
sometimes ate when they were hungry. To the above were added
rulers, reed-pens, pen-cases, pen-knives, pencils, and last,
though not least, the rod which kept them to the steady use of
all these things: At Athens these schools were not provided by
the state. They were private speculations, and each master was
regulated in his charges by the reputation he had acquired and
the fortunes of his pupils. Some appear to have been extremely
moderate in their demands. ... The earliest task to be
performed at school was to gain a knowledge of the Greek
characters, large and small, to spell next, next to read. ...
In teaching the art of writing their practice nearly resembled
our own. ... These things were necessarily the first step in
the first class of studies, which were denominated music, and
comprehended everything connected with the development of the
mind; and they were carried to a certain extent before the
second division called gymnastics was commenced. They reversed
the plan commonly adopted among ourselves, for with them
poetry preceded prose, a practice which, coöperating with
their susceptible temperament, impressed upon the national
mind that imaginative character for which it was preëminently
distinguished.
{681}
And the poets in whose works they were first initiated were of
all the most poetical, the authors of lyrical and dithyrambic
pieces, selections from whose verses they committed to memory,
thus acquiring early a rich store of sentences and imagery
ready to be adduced in argument or illustration, to furnish
familiar allusions or to be woven into the texture of their
style. ... Among the other branches of knowledge most
necessary to be studied, and to which they applied themselves
nearly from the outset, was arithmetic, without some inkling
of which, a man, in Plato's opinion, could scarcely be a
citizen at all. ... The importance attached to this branch of
education, nowhere more apparent than in the dialogues of
Plato, furnishes one proof that the Athenians were
preëminently men of business, who in all their admiration for
the good and beautiful never lost sight of those things which
promote the comfort of life, and enable a man effectually to
perform his ordinary duties. With the same views were geometry
and astronomy pursued. ... The importance of music, in the
education of the Greeks, is generally understood. It was
employed to effect several purposes. First, to sooth and
mollify the fierceness of the national character, and prepare
the way for the lessons of the poets, which, delivered amid
the sounding of melodious strings, when the soul was rapt and
elevated by harmony, by the excitement of numbers, by the
magic of the sweetest associations, took a firm hold upon the
mind, and generally retained it during life. Secondly, it
enabled the citizens gracefully to perform their part in the
amusements of social life, every person being in his turn
called upon at entertainments to sing or play upon the lyre.
Thirdly, it was necessary to enable them to join in the sacred
choruses, rendered frequent by the piety of the state, and for
the due performance in old age of many offices of religion,
the sacerdotal character belonging more or less to all the
citizens of Athens. Fourthly, as much of the learning of a
Greek was martial and designed to fit him for defending his
country, he required some knowledge of music that on the field
of battle his voice might harmoniously mingle with those of
his countrymen, in chaunting those stirring, impetuous, and
terrible melodies, called pæans, which preceded the first
shock of fight. For some, or all of these reasons, the science
of music began to be cultivated among the Hellenes, at a
period almost beyond the reach even of tradition."
J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 2, chapter 4.
"In thinking of Greek education as furnishing a possible model
for us moderns, there is one point which it is important to
bear in mind: Greek education was intended only for the few,
for the wealthy and well-born. Upon all others, upon slaves,
barbarians, the working and trading classes, and generally
upon all persons spending their lives in pursuit of wealth or
any private ends whatsoever, it would have seemed to be thrown
away. Even well-born women were generally excluded from most
of its benefits. The subjects of education were the sons of
full citizens, themselves preparing to be full citizens, and
to exercise all the functions of such. The duties of such
persons were completely summed up under two heads, duties to
the family and duties to the State, or, as the Greeks said,
œconomic and political duties. The free citizen not only
acknowledged no other duties besides these, but he looked down
upon persons who sought occupation in any other sphere.
Œconomy and Politics, however, were very comprehensive terms.
The former included the three relations of husband to wife,
father to children, and master to slaves and property; the
latter, three public functions, legislative, administrative,
and judiciary. All occupations not included under these six
heads the free citizen left to slaves or resident foreigners.
Money-making, in the modern sense, he despised, and, if he
devoted himself to art or philosophy, he did so only for the
benefit of the State."
T. Davidson, Aristotle, book 1, chapter 4.
EDUCATION: Greek
Spartan Training.
"From his birth every Spartan belonged to the state, which
decided ... whether he was likely to prove a useful member of
the community, and extinguished the life of the sickly or
deformed infant. To the age of seven however the care of the
child was delegated to its natural guardians, yet not so as to
be left wholly to their discretion, but subject to certain
established rules of treatment, which guarded against every
mischievous indulgence of parental tenderness. At the end of
seven years began a long course of public discipline, which
grew constantly more and more severe as the boy approached
toward manhood. The education of the young was in some degree
the business of all the elder citizens; for there was none who
did not contribute to it, if not by his active interference,
at least by his presence and inspection. But it was placed
under the especial superintendence of an officer selected from
the men of most approved worth; and he again chose a number of
youths, just past the age of twenty, and who most eminently
united courage with discretion, to exercise a more immediate
command over the classes, into which the boys were divided.
The leader of each class directed the sports and tasks of his
young troop, and punished their offences with military rigour,
but was himself responsible to his elders for the mode in
which he discharged his office. The Spartan education was
simple in its objects; it was not the result of any general
view of human nature, or of any attempt to unfold its various
capacities: it aimed at training men who were to live in the
midst of difficulty and danger, and who could only be safe
themselves while they held rule over others. The citizen was
to be always ready for the defence of himself and his country,
at home and abroad, and he was therefore to be equally fitted
to command and to obey. His body, his mind, and his character
were formed for this purpose, and for no other: and hence the
Spartan system, making directly for its main end, and
rejecting all that was foreign to it, attained, within its own
sphere, to a perfection which it is impossible not to admire.
The young Spartan was perhaps unable either to read or write:
he scarcely possessed the elements of any of the arts or
sciences by which society is enriched or adorned: but he could
run, leap, wrestle, hurl the disk, or the javelin, and wield
every other weapon, with a vigour and agility, and grace which
were no where surpassed. These however were accomplishments to
be learnt in every Greek palæstra: he might find many rivals
in all that he could do; but few could approach him in the
firmness with which he was taught to suffer. From the tender
age at which he left his mother's lap for the public schools,
his life was one continued trial of patience. Coarse and
scanty fare, and this occasionally withheld, a light dress,
without any change in the depth of winter, a bed of reeds,
which he himself gathered from the Eurotas, blows exchanged
with his comrades, stripes inflicted by his governors, more by
way of exercise than of punishment, inured him to every form
of pain and hardship. ...
{682}
The Muses were appropriately honoured at Sparta with a
sacrifice on the eve of a battle, and the union of the spear
and the lyre was a favourite theme with the Laconian poets,
and those who sang of Spartan customs. Though bred in the
discipline of the camp, the young Spartan, like the hero of
the Iliad, was not a stranger to music and poetry. He was
taught to sing, and to play on the flute and the lyre: but the
strains with which his memory was stored, and to which his voice
was formed, were either sacred hymns, or breathed a martial
spirit; and it was because they cherished such sentiments that
the Homeric lays, if not introduced by Lycurgus, were early
welcomed at Sparta. ... As these musical exercises were
designed to cultivate, not so much an intellectual, as a moral
taste; so it was probably less for the sake of sharpening
their ingenuity, than of promoting presence of mind, and
promptness of decision, that the boys were led into the habit
of answering all questions proposed to them, with a ready,
pointed, sententious brevity, which was a proverbial
characteristic of Spartan conversation. But the lessons which
were most studiously inculcated, more indeed by example than
by precept, were those of modesty, obedience, and reverence
for age and rank; for these were the qualities on which, above
all others, the stability of the commonwealth reposed. The
gait and look of the Spartan youths, as they passed along the
streets, observed Xenophon, breathed modesty and reserve. In
the presence of their elders they were bashful as virgins, and
silent as statues, save when a question was put to them. ...
In truth, the respect for the laws, which rendered the Spartan
averse to innovation at home, was little more than another
form of that awe with which his early habits inspired him for
the magistrates and the aged. With this feeling was intimately
connected that quick and deep sense of shame, which shrank
from dishonour as the most dreadful of evils, and enabled him
to meet death so calmly, when he saw in it the will of his
country."
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 8.
EDUCATION:
Free-School Ideas in Greece.
"It is a prevalent opinion that common schools, as we now have
them, were an American invention. No legislation, it is
asserted, taxing all in order that all may be taught can be
traced back further than to the early laws of Massachusetts.
Those who deny this assertion are content with showing
something of the sort in Scotland and Germany a generation or
two before the landing of the Plymouth pilgrims. The truth is,
however, that, as much of our social wit is now credited to
the ancient Greeks, something of our educational wisdom ought
to be. Two centuries ago John Locke, as an able political
writer, was invited to draw up a code of fundamental laws for
the new colony of Carolina, and in like manner, more than
2,300 years ago, Charondas, a master of a similar type in
Magna Græcia, was called to a similar task. This was to frame
a series of statutes for the government of a Greek colony
founded about 446 B. C., in the foot of Italy. This colony was
Thurii, and conspicuous among the enactments of Charondas was
the following: 'Charondas made a law unlike those of lawgivers
before him, for he enacted that the sons of the citizens
should all learn letters (or writing) ... the city making
payment to the teachers. He thought that the poor, not able to
pay wages themselves, would otherwise fail of the best
training. He counted writing the most important study, and
with reason. Through writing, most things in life, and those
the most useful, are accomplished--as ballots, epistles, laws,
covenants. Who can sufficiently praise the learning of
letters? ... Writing alone preserves the most brilliant
utterances of wise men and the oracles of gods, nay philosophy
and all culture. All these things it alone hands down to all
future generations. Wherefore nature should be viewed as the
source of life, but the source of living well we should
consider the culture derived from writing. Inasmuch, then, as
illiterates are deprived of a great good, Charondas came to
their help, judging them worthy of public care and outlay.
Former legislators had caused the sick to be attended by
physicians at the public expense, thinking their bodies worthy
of cure. He did more, for he cured souls afflicted with
ignorance. The doctors of the body we pray that we may never
need, while we would fain abide for ever with those who
minister to the mind diseased.'--This extract is from the
'Bibliotheca Historica' of Diodorus Siculus (Book x. § 13),
who was flourishing at the birth of Christ and was the most
painstaking chronicler of the Augustan age. The legislation is
worth notice for more than one reason. It rebukes the
self-conceit of those who hold that the education of all at
the charge of all is an idea born in our own time or country.
It has also been strangely unnoticed by historians who ought
to have kept it before the people."
The Nation, March 24, 1892, pages 280-231.
EDUCATION:
Socrates and the Philosophical Schools.
"Before the rise of philosophy, the teacher of the people had
been the rhapsode, or public reciter; after that event he
gradually gives place to the sophist (... one who makes wise),
or, as he later with more modesty calls himself, the
philosopher (... lover of wisdom). The history of Greece for
centuries is, on its inner side, a history of the struggle
between what the rhapsode represents and what the philosopher
represents, between popular tradition and common sense on the
one hand, and individual opinion and philosophy on the other.
The transition from the first to the second of these mental
conditions was accomplished for the world, once for all, by
the Greeks."
T. Davidson, Aristotle, book 1, chapter 5.
"There is no instance on record of a philosopher whose
importance as a thinker is so closely bound up with the
personality of the man as it was in the case of Socrates. ...
His teaching was not of a kind to be directly imparted and
faithfully handed down, but could only be left to propagate
itself freely by stirring up others to a similar self·culture.
... The youth and early manhood of Socrates fall in the most
brilliant period of Grecian history. Born during the last
years of the Persian war, he was a near contemporary of all
those great men who adorned the age of Pericles. As a citizen
of Athens he could enjoy the opportunities afforded by a city,
which united every means of culture by its unrivalled
fertility of thought. Poverty and low birth were but slender
obstacles in the Athens of Pericles. ... Socrates, no doubt,
began life by learning his father's trade, ... which he
probably never practised, and certainly soon gave up.
{683}
He considered it to be his special calling to labour for the
moral and intellectual improvement of himself and others--a
conviction which he felt so strongly that it appeared to him
in the light of a divine revelation. Moreover he was confirmed
in it by a Delphic oracle, which, of course, must not be
regarded as the cause of, but rather as an additional support
to his reforming zeal. ... To be independent, he tried, like
the Gods, to rise superior to his wants; and by carefully
practising self-denial and abstemiousness, he was really able
to boast that his life was more pleasant and more free from
troubles than that of the rest of mankind. Thus he was able to
devote his whole powers to the service of others, without
asking or taking reward; and thus he became so engrossed by
his labours for his native city, that he rarely passed its
boundaries or even went outside its gates. He did not,
however, feel himself called upon to take part in the affairs
of the state. ... Anyone convinced as he was, that care for
one's own culture must precede care for public business, and
that a thorough knowledge of self, together with a deep and
many-sided experience, was a necessary condition of public
activity, must have thought that, to educate individuals by
influence, was the more pressing need, and have held that he
was doing his country a better service by educating able
statesmen for it, than by actually discharging a statesman's
duties. Accordingly, Socrates never aimed at being anything
but a private citizen. ... Just as little was he desirous of
being a public teacher like the Sophists. He not only took no
pay, but he gave no methodical course. He did not profess to
teach, but to learn in common with others, not to force his
convictions upon them, but to examine theirs; not to pass the
truth that came to hand like a coin fresh from the mint, but
to stir up a desire for truth and virtue, to point out the way
to it, to overthrow what was spurious, and to seek out real
knowledge. Never weary of talking, he was on the look out for
every opportunity of giving an instructive and moral turn to
the conversation. Day by day he was about in the market and
public promenades, in schools and workshops, ever ready to
converse with friends or strangers, with citizens and
foreigners, but always prepared to lead them to higher
subjects; and whilst thus in his higher calling serving God,
he was persuaded that he was also serving his country in a way
that no one else could do. Deeply as he deplored the decline
of discipline and education in his native city, he felt that
he could depend but little on the Sophists, the moral teachers
of his day. The attractive powers of his discourse won for him
a circle of admirers, for the most part consisting of young
men of family, drawn to him by the most varied motives,
standing to him in various relations, and coming to him, some
for a longer, others for a shorter time. For his own part, he
made it his business not only to educate these friends, but to
advise them in everything, even in worldly matters. But out of
this changing, and in part loosely connected, society, a
nucleus was gradually formed of decided admirers,--a Socratic
school, which we must consider united far less by a common set
of doctrines, than by a common love for the person of
Socrates."
E. Zeller, Socrates and the Socratic Schools, chapter 3.
"Nowhere, except in Athens, do we hear of a philosophic body
with endowments, legal succession, and the other rights of a
corporation. This idea, which has never since died out of the
world, was due to Plato, who bequeathed his garden and
appointments in the place called after the hero Hekademus, to
his followers. But he was obliged to do it in the only form
possible at Athens. He made it a religious foundation, on the
basis of a fixed worship to the Muses. ... The head or
President of Plato's 'Association of the Muses,' was the
treasurer and manager of the common fund, who invited guests
to their feasts, to which each member contributed his share.
... The members had, moreover, a right to attend lectures and
use the library or scientific appointments, such as maps,
which belonged to the school. It was this endowment on a
religious basis which saved the income and position of Plato's
school for centuries. ... This then is the first Academy, so
often imitated in so many lands, and of which our colleges are
the direct descendants. ... The school of Plato, then governed
by Xenocrates, being the bequest of an Athenian citizen who
understood the law, seems never to have been assailed. The
schools of Epicurus and Zeno were perhaps not yet recognised.
But that of Theophrastus, perhaps the most crowded, certainly
the most distinctly philo-Macedonian, ... this was the school
which was exiled, and which owed its rehabilitation not only
to the legal decision of the courts, but still more to the
large views of King Demetrius, who would not tolerate the
persecution of opinion. But it was the other Demetrius, the
philosopher, the pupil of Aristotle, the friend of
Theophrastus, to whom the school owed most, and to whom the
world owes most in the matter of museums and academies, next
after Plato. For this was the man who took care, during his
Protectorate of Athens in the interest of Casander, to
establish a garden and 'peripatos' for the Peripatetic school,
now under Theophrastus. ... It is remarkable that the Stoic
school--it too the school of aliens--did not establish a local
foundation or succession, but taught in public places, such as
the Painted Portico. In this the Cynical tone of the Porch
comes out. Hence the succession depended upon the genius of
the leader."
J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, chapter 7.
An account of the Academy, the Lyceum, etc., will be found
under the caption GYMNASIA.
EDUCATION:
University of Athens.
"Some scholars ... may doubt if there was anything at Athens
which could answer to the College Life of modern times. Indeed
it must be owned that formal history is nearly silent on the
subject, that ancient writers take little notice of it, and
such evidences as we have are drawn almost entirely from a
series of inscriptions on the marble tablets, which were
covered with the ruins and the dust of ages, till one after
another came to light in recent days, to add fresh pages to
the story of the past. Happily they are both numerous and
lengthy, and may be already pieced together in an order which
extends for centuries. They are known to Epigraphic students
as the records which deal with the so-called Ephebi; with the
youths, that is, just passing into manhood, for whom a special
discipline was provided by the State, to, fit them for the
responsibilities of active life. It was a National system with
a many-sided training; the teachers were members of the Civil
Service; the registers were public documents, and, as such,
belonged to the Archives of the State.
{684}
The earlier inscriptions of the series date from the
period of Macedonian ascendency, but in much earlier times
there had been forms of public drill prescribed for the
Ephebi. ... We find from a decree, which, if genuine, dates
even from the days of Pericles, that the young men of Cos were
allowed by special favour to share the discipline of the
Athenian Ephebi. Soon afterwards others were admitted on all
sides. The aliens who had gained a competence as merchants or
as bankers, found their sons welcomed in the ranks of the
oldest families of Athens; strangers flocked thither from
distant countries, not only from the isles of Greece, and from
the coasts of the Ægean, but, as Hellenic culture made its way
through the far East, students even of the Semitic race were
glad to enrol their names upon the College registers, where we
may still see them with the marks of their several
nationalities affixed. The young men were no longer, like
soldiers upon actual service, beginning already the real work
of life, and on that account, perhaps, the term was shortened
from the two years to one; but the old associations lasted on
for ages, even in realistic Athens, which in early politics at
least had made so clean a sweep. The outward forms were still
preserved, the soldier's drill was still enforced, and though
many another feature had been added, the whole institution
bore upon its face the look rather of a Military College than
of a training school for a scholar or a statesman. The College
year began somewhat later than the opening of the civil year,
and it was usual for all the students to matriculate together;
that is, to enter formally their names upon the registers,
which were copied afterwards upon the marble tablets, of which
large fragments have survived. ... 'To put the gown on,' or,
as we should say, 'to be a gownsman,' was the phrase which
stood for being a member of the College; and the gown, too,
was of black, as commonly among ourselves. But Philostratus
tells us, by the way, that a change was made from black to
white at the prompting of Herodes Atticus, the munificent and
learned subject of the Antonines, who was for many years the
presiding genius of the University of Athens. The fragment of
an inscription lately found curiously confirms and supplements
the writer's statement. ... The members of the College are spoken
of as 'friends' and 'messmates'; and it is probable that some
form of conventual life prevailed among them, without which
the drill and supervision, which are constantly implied in the
inscriptions, could scarcely have been enforced by the
officials. But we know nothing of any public buildings for
their use save the gymnasia, which in all Greek towns were the
centres of educational routine, and of which there were
several well known at Athens. ... The College did not try to
monopolise the education of its students. It had, indeed, its
own tutors or instructors, but they were kept for humbler
drill; it did not even for a long time keep an organist or
choirmaster of its own; it sent its students out for teaching
in philosophy and rhetoric and grammar, or, in a word, for all
the larger and more liberal studies. Nor did it favour any
special set of tenets to the exclusion of the rest. It
encouraged impartially all the schools of higher thought. ...
The Head of the College held the title of Cosmetes, or of
rector. ... The Rector, appointed only for a year by popular
election, was no merely honorary head, but took an important
part in the real work of education. He was sometimes clothed
with priestly functions. ... The system of education thus
described was under the control of the government throughout.
... It may surprise us that our information comes almost
entirely from the inscriptions, and that ancient writers are
all nearly silent on the subject. ... But there was little to
attract the literary circles in arrangements so mechanical and
formal; there was too much of outward pageantry, and too
little of real character evolved."
W. W. Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens, chapter 1.
J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches, chapter 4.
The reign of the Emperor Justinian "may be signalised as the
fatal epoch at which several of the noblest institutions of
antiquity were abolished. He shut the schools of Athens (A. D.
529), in which an uninterrupted succession of philosophers,
supported by a public stipend, had taught the doctrines of
Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus, ever since the time of
the Antonines. They were, it is true, still attached to
paganism, and even to the arts of magic."
J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire,
volume 1, chapter 10.
See ATHENS: A. D. 529.
EDUCATION:
Alexandria.
"Ptolemy, upon whom, on Alexander's death, devolved the
kingdom of Egypt, supplies us with the first great instance of
what may be called the establishment of Letters. He and
Eumenes may be considered the first founders of public
libraries. ... A library, however, was only one of two great
conceptions brought into execution by the first Ptolemy; and
as the first was the embalming of dead genius, so the second
was the endowment of living. ... Ptolemy, ... prompted, or at
least, encouraged, by the celebrated Demetrius of Phalerus,
put into execution a plan for the formal endowment of
literature and science. The fact indeed of the possession of
an immense library seemed sufficient to render Alexandria a
University; for what could be a greater attraction to the
students of all lands, than the opportunity afforded them of
intellectual converse, not only with the living, but with the
dead, with all who had anywhere at any time thrown light upon
any subject of inquiry? But Ptolemy determined that his
teachers of knowledge should be as stationary and as permanent
as his books; so, resolving to make Alexandria the seat of a
'Studium Generale,' he founded a College for its domicile, and
endowed that College with ample revenues. Here, I consider, he
did more than has been commonly done, till modern times. It
requires considerable knowledge of medieval Universities to be
entitled to give an opinion; as regards Germany, for instance,
or Poland, or Spain; but, as far as I have a right to speak,
such an endowment has been rare down to the sixteenth century,
as well as before Ptolemy. ... To return to the Alexandrian
College. It was called the Museum,--a name since appropriated
to another institution connected with the seats of science.
... There was a quarter of the city so distinct from the rest
in Alexandria, that it is sometimes spoken of as a suburb. It
was pleasantly situated on the water's edge, and had been set
aside for ornamental buildings, and was traversed by groves of
trees. Here stood the royal palace, here the theatre and
amphitheatre; here the gymnasia and stadium; here the famous
Serapeum.
{685}
And here it was, close upon the Port, that Ptolemy placed his
Library and College. As might be supposed, the building was
worthy of its purpose; a noble portico stretched along its
front, for exercise or conversation, and opened upon the
public rooms devoted to disputations and lectures. A certain
number of Professors were lodged within the precincts, and a
handsome hall, or refectory, was provided for the common meal.
The Prefect of the house was a priest, whose appointment lay
with the government. Over the Library a dignified person
presided. ... As to the Professors, so liberal was their
maintenance, that a philosopher of the very age of the first
foundation called the place a 'bread basket,' or a 'bird
coop'; yet, in spite of accidental exceptions, so careful on
the whole was their selection, that even six hundred years
afterwards, Ammianus describes the Museum under the title of
'the lasting abode of distinguished men.' Philostratus, too,
about a century before, calls it 'a table gathering together
celebrated men.' ... As time went on new Colleges were added
to the original Museum; of which one was a foundation of the
Emperor Claudius, and called after his name. ... A diversity
of teachers secured an abundance of students. 'Hither,' says
Cave, 'as to a public emporium of polite literature,
congregated, from every part of the world, youthful students,
and attended the lectures in Grammar, Rhetoric, Poetry,
Philosophy, Astronomy, Music, Medicine, and other arts and
sciences'; and hence proceeded, as it would appear, the great
Christian writers and doctors, 'Clement, ... Origen,
Anatolius, and Athanasius. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the
third century, may be added; he came across Asia Minor and
Syria from Pontus, as to a place, says his namesake of Nyssa,
'to which young men from all parts gathered together, who were
applying themselves to philosophy.' As to the subjects taught
in the Museum, Cave has already enumerated the principal; but
he has not done justice to the peculiar character of the
Alexandrian school. From the time that science got out of the
hands of the pure Greeks, into those of a power which had a
talent for administration, it became less theoretical, and
bore more distinctly upon definite and tangible objects. ...
Egyptian Antiquities were investigated, at least by the
disciples of the Egyptian Manetho, fragments of whose history
are considered to remain; while Carthaginian and Etruscan had
a place in the studies of the Claudian College. The Museum was
celebrated, moreover, for its grammarians; the work of
Hephæstion 'de Metris' still affords matter of thought to a
living Professor of Oxford; and Aristarchus, like the Athenian
Priscian, has almost become the nickname for a critic. Yet,
eminent as is the Alexandrian school in these departments of
science, its fame rests still more securely upon its
proficiency in medicine and mathematics. Among its physicians
is the celebrated Galen, who was attracted thither from
Pergamus; and we are told by a writer of the fourth century,
that in his time the very fact of a physician having studied
at Alexandria, was an evidence of his science which superseded
further testimonial. As to Mathematics, it is sufficient to
say, that, of four great ancient names, on whom the modern
science is founded, three came from Alexandria. Archimedes
indeed was a Syracusan; but the Museum may boast of Apollonius
of Perga, Diophantus, a native Alexandrian, and Euclid, whose
country is unknown. To these illustrious names, may be added,
Eratosthenes of Cyrene, to whom astronomy has obligations so
considerable; Pappus; Theon; and Ptolemy, said to be of
Pelusium, whose celebrated system, called after him the
Ptolemaic, reigned in the schools till the time of Copernicus,
and whose Geography, dealing with facts, not theories, is in
repute still. Such was the celebrated 'Studium' or University
of Alexandria; for a while in the course of the third and
fourth centuries, it was subject to reverses, principally from
war. The whole of the Bruchion, the quarter of the city in
which it was situated, was given to the flames; and, when
Hilarion came to Alexandria, the holy hermit, whose rule of
life did not suffer him to lodge in cities, took up his
lodgment with a few solitaries among the ruins of its
edifices. The schools, however, and the library continued; the
library was reserved for the Caliph Omar's famous judgment; as
to the schools, even as late as the twelfth century, the Jew,
Benjamin of Tudela, gives us a surprising report of what he
found in Alexandria."
J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches:
Rise and Progress of Universities, chapter 8.
"In the three centuries which intervened between Alexander and
Augustus, Athens was preëminently the training school for
philosophy, Rhodes, on the other hand, as the only Greek state
of political importance in which a career of grand and
dignified activity was open for the orator, distinguished
itself in the study of eloquence, while Alexandria rested its
fame chiefly on the excellence of its instruction in Philology
and Medicine. At a subsequent period the last mentioned
University obtained even greater celebrity as having given
birth to a school of philosophers who endeavored to combine
into a species of theosophic doctrine the mental science of
Europe with the more spiritual minded and profoundly human
religions of the East. In the third century Alexandria became
conspicuous as the headquarters of the Eclectics and
Neo·Platonists."
E. Kirkpatrick, Historical Development of Superior
Instruction (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 24, pages 466-467).
EDUCATION:
Rome.
"If we cast a final glance at the question of education, we
shall find but little to say of it, as far as regards the
period before Cicero. In the republican times the state did
not trouble itself about the training of youth: a few
prohibitory regulations were laid down, and the rest left to
private individuals. Thus no public instruction was given;
public schools there were, but only as private undertakings
for the sake of the children of the rich. All depended on the
father; his personal character and the care taken by the
mother in education decided the development of the child's
disposition. Books there were none; and therefore they could
not be put into the hands of children. A few rugged hymns,
such as those of the Salii and Arval brothers, with the songs
in Fescennine verse, sung on festivals and at banquets, formed
the poetical literature. A child would hear, besides, the
dirges, or memorial verses, composed by women in honour of the
dead, and sometimes, too, the public panegyrics pronounced on
their departed relatives, a distinction accorded to women also
from the time of Camillus.
{686}
Whatever was taught a boy by father or mother, or acquired
externally to the house, was calculated to make the Roman
'virtus' appear in his eyes the highest aim of his ambition;
the term including self-mastery, an unbending firmness of
will, with patience, and an iron tenacity of purpose in
carrying through whatever was once acknowledged to be right.
The Greek palestra and its naked combatants always seemed
strange and offensive to Roman eyes. In the republican times
the exercises of the gymnasium were but little in fashion;
though riding, swimming, and other warlike exercises were
industriously practised, as preparations for the campaign. The
slave pædagogus, assigned to young people to take charge of
them, had a higher position with the Romans than the Greeks;
and was not allowed to let his pupils out of his sight till
their twentieth year. The Latin Odyssey of Livius Andronicus
was the school-book first in use; and this and Ennius were the
only two works to create and foster a literary taste before
the destruction of Carthage. The freedman Sp. Carvilius was
the first to open a school for higher education. After this
the Greek language and literature came into the circle of
studies, and in consequence of the wars in Sicily, Macedon,
and Asia, families of distinction kept slaves who knew Greek.
Teachers quickly multiplied, and were either liberti, or their
descendants. No free-born Roman would consent to be a paid
teacher, for that was held to be a degradation. The Greek
language remained throughout the classical [age] one for
Romans: they even made their children begin with Homer. As, by
the seventh century of the republic, Ennius, Plautus,
Pacuvius, and Terence, had already become old poets,
dictations were given to scholars from their writings. The
interpretation of Virgil began under Augustus, and by this
time the younger Romans were resorting to Athens, Rhodes,
Apollonia, and Mitylene, in order to make progress in Greek
rhetoric and philosophy. As Roman notions were based entirely
on the practical and the useful, music was neglected as a part
of education; while, as a contrast, boys were compelled to
learn the laws of the twelve tables by heart. Cicero, who had
gone through this discipline with other boys of his time,
complains of the practice having begun to be set aside; and
Scipio Æmilianus deplored, as an evil omen of degeneracy, the
sending of boys and girls to the academies of actors, where
they learnt dancing and singing, in company with young women
of pleasure. In one of these schools were to be found as many
as five hundred young persons, all being instructed in
postures and motions of the most abandoned kind. ... On the
other hand, the gymnastic exercises, which had once served the
young men as a training for war, fell into disuse, having
naturally become objectless and burdensome, now that, under
Augustus, no more Roman citizens chose to enlist in the
legions. Still slavery was, and continued to be, the foremost
cause of the depravation of youth, and of an evil education.
... It was no longer the mothers who educated their own
children: they had neither inclination nor capacity for such
duty, for mothers of the stamp of Cornelia had disappeared.
Immediately on its birth, the child was intrusted to a Greek
female slave, with some male slave, often of the worst
description, to help her. ... The young Roman was not educated
in the constant companionship of youths of his own age, under
equal discipline: surrounded by his father's slaves and
parasites, and always accompanied by a slave when he went out,
he hardly received any other impressions than such as were
calculated to foster conceit, indolence, and pride in him."
J. J. I. Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew,
volume 2, pages 279-281.
EDUCATION:
Higher Education under the Empire.
"Besides schools of high eminence in Mytilene, Ephesus,
Smyrna, Sidon, etc., we read that Apollonia enjoyed so high a
reputation for eloquence and political science as to be
entrusted with the education of the heir-apparent of the Roman
Empire. Antioch was noted for a Museum modelled after that of
the Egyptian metropolis, and Tarsus boasted of Gymnasia and a
University which Strabo does not hesitate to describe as more
than rivaling those of Athens and Alexandria. There can be
little doubt that the philosophers, rhetoricians, and
grammarians who swarmed in the princely retinues of the great
Roman aristocracy, and whose schools abounded in all the most
wealthy and populous cities of the empire east and west, were
prepared for their several callings in some one or other of
these institutions. Strabo tells us ... that Rome was overrun
with Alexandrian and Syrian grammarians, and Juvenal describes
one of the Quirites of the ancient stamp as emigrating in
sheer disgust from a city which from these causes had become
thoroughly and utterly Greek. ... That external inducements
were held out amply sufficient to prevail upon poor and
ambitious men to qualify themselves at some cost for vocations
of this description is evident from the wealth to which, as we
are told, many of them rose from extreme indigence and
obscurity. Suetonius, in the still extant fragment of his
essay 'de claris rhetoribus,' after alluding to the immense
number of professors and doctors met with in Rome, draws
attention to the frequency with which individuals who had
distinguished themselves as teachers of rhetoric had been
elevated into the senate, and advanced to the highest
dignities of the state. That the profession of a philologist
was occasionally at least well remunerated is evident from the
facts recorded by the same author in his work 'de claris
grammaticis,' section 3. He there mentions that there were at
one time upwards of twenty well attended schools devoted to
this subject at Rome, and that one fortunate individual, Q.
Remmius Palaemon, derived four hundred thousand sesterces, or
considerably above three thousand a year, from instruction in
philology alone. Julius Caesar conferred the citizenship,
together with large bounties in money, and immunity from
public burthens, on distinguished rhetoricians and
philologists, in order to encourage their presence at Rome.
... That individuals who thus enjoyed an income not greatly
below the revenues of an English Bishopric were not, as the
name might lead us to imagine, employed in teaching the
accidents of grammar, but possessed considerable pretensions
to that higher and more thoughtful character of the scholar
which it has been reserved for modern Europe to exhibit in
perfection, is not only in itself highly probable, but
supported by the distinctest and most unimpeachable evidence.
Seneca tells us that history was amongst the subjects
professed by grammarians, and Cicero regards the most thorough
and refined perception of all that pertains to the spirit and
individuality of the author as an indispensable requisite in
those who undertake to give instruction in this subject. ...
The grammatici appear to have occupied a position very closely
analogous to that of the teachers of collegiate schools in
England, and the gymnasial professors in Germany."
E. Kirkpatrick, Historical Development of Superior
Instruction (Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 24, pages 468-470.)
{687}
EDUCATION: Mediæval.
The Chaos of Barbaric Conquest.
"The utter confusion subsequent upon the downfall of the Roman
Empire and the irruption of the Germanic races was causing, by
the mere brute force of circumstance, a gradual extinction of
scholarship too powerful to be arrested. The teaching of
grammar for ecclesiastical purposes was insufficient to check
the influence of many causes leading to this overthrow of
learning. It was impossible to communicate more than a mere
tincture of knowledge to students separated from the classical
tradition, for whom the antecedent history of Rome was a dead
letter. The meaning of Latin words derived from the Greek was
lost. ... Theological notions, grotesque and childish beyond
description, found their way into etymology and grammar. The
three persons of the Trinity were discovered in the verb, and
mystic numbers in the parts of speech. Thus analytical studies
like that of language came to be regarded as an open field for
the exercise of the mythologising fancy; and etymology was
reduced to a system of ingenious punning. ... Virgil, the only
classic who retained distinct and living personality, passed
from poet to philosopher, from philosopher to Sibyl, from
Sibyl to magician, by successive stages of transmutation, as
the truth about him grew more dim and the faculty to apprehend
him weakened. Forming the staple of education in the schools
of the grammarians, and metamorphosed by the vulgar
consciousness into a wizard, he waited on the extreme verge of
the dark ages to take Dante by the hand, and lead him, as the
type of human reason, through the realms of Hell and
Purgatory."
J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy:
the Revival of Learning; chapter 2.
EDUCATION: Mediæval.
Gaul: 4th-5th Centuries.
"If institutions could do all, if laws supplied and the means
furnished to society could do everything, the intellectual
state of Gaulish civil society at this epoch [4th-5th
centuries] would have been far superior to that of the
religious society. The first, in fact, alone possessed all the
institutions proper to second the development of mind, the
progress and empire of ideas. Roman Gaul was covered with
large schools. The principal were those of Trèves, Bordeaux,
Autun, Toulouse, Poitiers, Lyons, Narbonne, Aries, Marseilles,
Vienne, Besançon, &c. Some were very ancient; those of
Marseilles and of Autun, for example, dated from the first
century. They were taught philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence,
literature, grammar, astrology, all the sciences of the age.
In the greater part of these schools, indeed, they at first
taught only rhetoric and grammar; but towards the fourth
century, professors of philosophy and law were everywhere
introduced. Not only were these schools numerous, and provided
with many chairs, but the emperors continually took the
professors of new measures into favor. Their interests are,
from Constantine to Theodosius the younger, the subject of
frequent imperial constitutions, which sometimes extended,
sometimes confirmed their privileges. ... After the Empire was
divided among many masters, each of them concerned himself
rather more about the prosperity of his states and the public
establishments which were in them. Thence arose a momentary
amelioration, of which the schools felt the effects,
particularly those of Gaul, under the administration of
Constantius Clorus, of Julian, and of Gratian. By the side of
the schools were, in general, placed other analogous
establishments. Thus, at Trèves there was a grand library of
the imperial palace, concerning which no special information
has reached us, but of which we may judge by the details·
which have reached us concerning that of Constantinople. This
last had a librarian and seven scribes constantly
occupied--four for Greek, and three for Latin. They copied
both ancient and new works. It is probable that the same
institution existed at Trèves, and in the great towns of Gaul.
Civil society, then, was provided with means of instruction
and intellectual development. It was not the same with
religious society. It had at this epoch no institution
especially devoted to teaching; it did not receive from the
state any aid to this particular aim. Christians, as well as
others, could frequent the public schools; but most of the
professors were still pagans. ... It was for a long time in
the inferior classes, among the people, that Christianity was
propagated, especially in the Gauls, and it was the superior
classes which followed the great schools. Moreover, it was
hardly until the commencement of the fourth century that the
Christians appeared there, and then but few in number. No
other source of study was open to them. The establishments
which, a little afterwards, became, in the Christian church,
the refuge and sanctuary of instruction, the monasteries, were
hardly commenced in the Gauls. It was only after the year 360
that the two first were founded by St. Martin--one at Ligugé,
near Poitiers, the other at Marmoutiers, near Tours; and they
were devoted rather to religious contemplation than to
teaching. Any great school, any special institution devoted to
the service and to the progress of intellect, was at that
time, therefore, wanting to the Christians. ... All things in
the fifth century, attest the decay of the civil schools. The
contemporaneous writers, Sidonius Apollinaris and Mamertius
Claudianus, for example, deplore it in every page, saying that
the young men no longer studied, that professors were without
pupils, that science languished and was being lost. ... It was
especially the young men of the superior classes who frequented
the schools; but these classes ... were in rapid dissolution.
The schools fell with them; the institutions still existed,
but they were void--the soul had quitted the body. The
intellectual aspect of Christian society was very different.
... Institutions began to rise, and to be regulated among the
Christians of Gaul. The foundation of the greater portion of
the large monasteries of the southern provinces belongs to the
first half of the fifth century. ... The monasteries of the
south of Gaul were philosophical schools of Christianity; it
was there that intellectual men meditated, discussed, taught;
it was from thence that new ideas, daring thoughts, heresies,
were sent forth. ...
{688}
Towards the end of the sixth century, everything is changed:
there are no longer civil schools; ecclesiastical schools
alone subsist. Those great municipal schools of Treves, of
Poitiers, of Vienne, of Bordeaux, &c., have disappeared; in
their place have arisen schools called cathedral or episcopal
schools, because each episcopal see had its own. The cathedral
school was not always alone; we find in certain dioceses other
schools, of an uncertain nature and origin, wrecks, perhaps,
of some ancient civil school, which, in becoming
metamorphosed, had perpetuated itself. ... The most
flourishing of the episcopal schools from the sixth to the
middle of the eighth century were those of:
1. Poitiers. There were many schools in the monasteries of the
diocese at Poitiers itself, at Ligugé, at Ansion, &c.
2. Paris.
3. LeMans.
4. Bourges.
5. Clermont. There was another school in the town where they
taught the Theodosian code; a remarkable circumstance, which I
do not find elsewhere.
6. Vienne.
7. Châlons-sur-Saone.
8. ArIes.
9. Gap.
The most flourishing of the monastic schools of the same epoch
were those of:
1. Luxeuil, in Franche-Comté.
2. Fontenelle, or Saint Vandrille, in Normandy; in which were
about 300 students.
3. Sithiu, in Normandy.
4. Saint Médard, at Soissons.
5. Lerens.
It were easy to extend this list; but the prosperity of
monastic schools was subject to great vicissitudes; they
flourished under a distinguished abbot, and declined under his
successor. Even in nunneries, study was not neglected; that
which Saint Cesaire founded at Aries contained, at the
commencement of the sixth century, two hundred nuns, for the
most part occupied in copying books, sometimes religious
books, sometimes, probably, even the works of the ancients.
The metamorphosis of civil schools into ecclesiastical schools
was complete. Let us see what was taught in them. We shall
often find in them the names of sciences formerly professed in
the civil schools, rhetoric, logic, grammar, geometry,
astrology, &c.; but these were evidently no longer taught
except in their relations to theology. This is the foundation
of the instruction: all was turned into commentary of the
Scriptures, historical, philosophical, allegorical, moral,
commentary. They desired only to form priests; all studies,
whatsoever their nature, were directed towards this result.
Sometimes they went even further: they rejected the profane
sciences themselves, whatever might be the use made of them."
F. Guizot, History of Civilization to the French
Revolution, volume 2, lecture 4 and 16.
EDUCATION:
Ireland.
Scotland.
Schools of Iona.
Popular accounts represent St. Patrick as "founding at least a
hundred monasteries, and even those who consider that the
greater number of the Irish colleges were raised by his
followers after his death, admit the fact of his having
established an episcopal monastery and school at Armagh, where
he and his clergy carried out the same rule of life that he
had seen followed in the churches of Gaul. ... The school,
which formed a portion of the Cathedral establishment, soon
rose in importance. Gildas taught here for some years before
joining St. Cadoc at Llancarvan; and in process of time the
number of students, both native and foreign, so increased that
the university, as we may justly call it, was divided into
three parts, one of which was devoted entirely to students of
the Anglo-Saxon race. Grants for the support of the schools
were made by the Irish kings in the eighth century; and all
through the troublous times of the ninth and tenth centuries,
when Ireland was overrun by the Danes, and so many of her
sanctuaries were given to the flames, the succession of
divinity professors at Armagh remained unbroken, and has been
carefully traced by Usher. We need not stop to determine how
many other establishments similar to those of Armagh were
really founded in the lifetime of St. Patrick. In any case the
rapid extension of the monastic institute in Ireland, and the
extraordinary ardour with which the Irish cœnobites applied
themselves to the cultivation of letters remain undisputed
facts. 'Within a century after the death of St. Patrick,' says
Bishop Nicholson, 'the Irish seminaries had so increased that
most parts of Europe sent their children to be educated here,
and drew thence their bishops and teachers.' The whole country
for miles round Leighlin was denominated the 'land of saints
and scholars.' By the ninth century Armagh could boast of
7,000 students, and the schools of Cashel, Dindaleathglass,
and Lismore vied with it in renown. This extraordinary
multiplication of monastic seminaries and scholars may be
explained partly by the constant immigration of British
refugees who brought with them the learning and religious
observances of their native cloisters, and partly by that
sacred and irresistible impulse which animates a newly
converted people to heroic acts of sacrifice. In Ireland the
infant church was not, as elsewhere, watered with the blood of
martyrs. ... The bards, who were to be found in great numbers
among the early converts of St. Patrick, had also a
considerable share in directing the energies of their
countrymen to intellectual labour. They formed the learned
class, and on their conversion to Christianity were readily
disposed to devote themselves to the culture of sacred
letters. ... It would be impossible, within the limits of a
single chapter, to notice even the names of all the Irish
seats of learning, or of their most celebrated teachers,
everyone of whom has his own legend in which sacred and poetic
beauties are to be found blended together. One of the earliest
monastic schools was that erected by Enda, prince of Orgiel,
in that western island called from the wild flowers which even
still cover its rocky soil, Aran-of-the-Flowers, a name it
afterwards exchanged for that of Ara-na-naomh, or
Aran-of-the-Saints. ... A little later St. Finian founded his
great school of Clonard, whence, says Usher, issued forth a
stream of saints and doctors, like the Greek warriors from the
wooden horse. .... This desolate wilderness was soon peopled
by his disciples, who are said to have numbered 3,000, of whom
the twelve most eminent are often termed the Twelve Apostles
of Ireland. ... Among them none were more famous than St.
Columba, St. Kieran, and St. Brendan. The first of these is
known to every English reader as the founder of Iona; and
Kieran, the carpenter's son, as he is called, is scarcely less
renowned among his own countrymen. ... It was in the year 563
that St. Columba, after founding the monasteries of
Doire-Calgaich and Dair-magh in his native land, and incurring
the enmity of one of the Irish kings, determined on crossing
over into Scotland in order to preach the faith to the
Northern Picts. Accompanied by twelve companions, he passed
the Channel in a rude wicker boat covered with skins, and
landed at Port-na Currachan, on a spot now marked by a heap of
huge conical stones.
{689}
Conall, king of the Albanian Scots, granted him the island of
I, Hi, or Ai, hitherto occupied by the Druids, and there he
erected the monastery which, in time, became the mother of
three hundred religious houses. ... Iona, or I-Colum-kil, as
it was called by the Irish, came to be looked on as the chief
seat of learning, not only in Britain, but in the whole
Western world. 'Thither, as from a nest,' says Odonellus,
playing on the Latin name of the founder, 'these sacred doves
took their flight to every quarter.' They studied the
classics, the mechanical arts, law, history, and physic. They
improved the arts of husbandry and horticulture, supplied the
rude people whom they had undertaken to civilise with
ploughshares and other utensils of labour, and taught them the
use of the forge, in the mysteries of which every Irish monk
was instructed from his boyhood. They transferred to their new
homes all the learning of Armagh or Clonard. ... In every
college of Irish origin, by whomsoever they were founded or on
whatever soil they flourished, we thus see study blended with
the duties of the missionary and the cœnobite. They were
religious houses, no doubt, in which the celebration of the
Church office was often kept up without intermission by day
and night; but they were also seminaries of learning, wherein
sacred and profane studies were cultivated with equal success.
Not only their own monasteries but those of every European
country were enriched with their manuscripts, and the
researches of modern bibliopolists are continually
disinterring from German or Italian libraries a Horace, or an
Ovid, or a Sacred Codex whose Irish gloss betrays the hand
which traced its delicate letters."
A. T. Drane, Christian Schools and Scholars, chapter 2.
EDUCATION:
Charlemagne.
"If there ever was a man who by his mere natural endowments
soared above other men, it was Charlemagne. His life, like his
stature, was colossal. Time never seemed wanting to him for
anything that he willed to accomplish, and during his ten
years campaign against the Saxons and Lombards, he contrived
to get leisure enough to study grammar, and render himself
tolerably proficient as a Latin writer in prose and verse. He
found his tutors in the cities that he conquered. When he
became master of Pisa, he gained the services of Peter of
Pisa, whom he set over the Palatine school, which had existed
even under the Merovingian kings, though as yet it was far
from enjoying the fame to which it was afterwards raised by
the teaching of Alcuin. He possessed the art of turning
enemies into friends, and thus drew to his court the famous
historian, Paul Warnefrid, deacon of the Church of Rome, who
had previously acted as secretary to Didier, king of the
Lombards. ... Another Italian scholar, St. Paulinus, of
Aquileja, was coaxed into the service of the Frankish
sovereign after his conquest of Friuli; I will not say that he
was bought, but he was certainly paid for by a large grant of
confiscated territory made over by diploma to 'the Venerable
Paulinus, master of the art of grammar.' But none of these
learned personages were destined to take so large a part in
that revival of learning which made the glory of Charlemagne's
reign, as our own countryman Alcuin. It was in 781, on
occasion of the king's second visit to Italy, that the meeting
took place at Parma, the result of which was to fix the
English scholar at the Frankish court. Having obtained the
consent of his own bishop and sovereign to this arrangement,
Alcuin came over to France in 782, bringing with him several
of the best scholars of York, among whom were Wizo, Fredegis,
and Sigulf. Charlemagne received him with joy, and assigned
him three abbeys for the maintenance of himself and his
disciples, those namely, of Ferrières, St. Lupus of Troyes,
and St. Josse in Ponthieu. From this time Alcuin held the
first place in the literary society that surrounded the
Frankish sovereign, and filled an office the duties of which
were as vast as they were various. Three great works at once
claimed his attention, the correction of the liturgical books,
the direction of the court academy, and the establishment of
other public schools throughout the empire. ... But it was as
head of the Palatine school that Alcuin's influence was
chiefly to be felt in the restoration of letters. Charlemagne
presented himself as his first pupil, together with the three
princes, Pepin, Charles, and Louis, his sister Gisla and his
daughter Richtrude, his councillors Adalard and Angilbert, and
Eginhard his secretary. Such illustrious scholars soon found
plenty to imitate their example, and Alcuin saw himself called
on to lecture daily to a goodly crowd of bishops, nobles, and
courtiers. The king wished to transform his court into a new
Athens preferable to that of ancient Greece, in so far as the
doctrine of Christ is to be preferred to that of Plato. All
the liberal arts were to be taught there, but in such a way as
that each should bear reference to religion, for this was
regarded as the final end of of all learning. Grammar was
studied in order better to understand the Holy Scriptures and
to transcribe them more correctly; music, to which much
attention was given, was chiefly confined to the
ecclesiastical chant; and it was principally to explain the
Fathers and refute errors contrary to the faith that rhetoric
and dialectics were studied. 'In short,' says Crevier, 'the
thought both of the king and of the scholar who laboured with
him was to refer all things to religion, nothing being
considered as truly useful which did not bear some relation to
that end.' At first Alcuin allowed the study of the classic
poets, and in his boyhood, as we know, he had been a greater
reader of Virgil than of the Scriptures. ... The authors whose
study Charlemagne and Alcuin desired to promote, were not so
much Virgil and Cicero, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and
Charlemagne, in his excessive admiration of those Fathers,
gave utterance to the wish that he had a dozen such men at his
court. The 'City of God' was read at the royal table, and the
questions addressed by the court students to their master
turned rather on the obscurities of Holy Writ than the
difficulties of prosody. In one thing, however, they betrayed
a classic taste, and that was in their selection of names. The
Royal Academicians all rejoiced in some literary soubriquet;
Alcuin was Flaccus; Angilbert, Homer; but Charlemagne himself
adopted the more scriptural appellation of David. The
eagerness with which this extraordinary man applied himself to
acquire learning for himself, and to extend it throughout his
dominions, is truly admirable, when we remember the enormous
labours in which he was constantly engaged."
A. T. Drane, Christian Schools and Scholars, chapter 5.
See, also,
SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, CHARLEMAGNE'S,
{690}
EDUCATION: England
King Alfred.
King Alfred "gathered round him at his own court the sons of
his nobility to receive, in conjunction with his own children,
a better education than their parents would be able or willing
to give them in their own households. To this assemblage of
pupils Asser has attached the name of school, and a violent
controversy once distracted the literary world concerning the
sense in which the word was to be understood, and whether it
was not the beginning or origin of a learned institution still
existing. In speaking of this subject, Asser has taken
occasion to enumerate and describe the children who were born
to Alfred from his wife Elswitha, daughter of Ethelred the
'Big,' alderman of the Gaini, and a noble of great wealth and
influence in Mercia. 'The sons and daughters,' says Asser,
'which he had by his wife above mentioned, were Ethelfled the
eldest, after whom came Edward, then Ethelgiva, then
Ethelswitha, and Ethelwerd, besides those who died in their
infancy, one of whom was Edmund. Ethelfled, when she arrived
at a marriageable age, was united to Ethelred, earl of Mercia;
Ethelgiva was dedicated to God, and submitted to the rules of
a monastic life; Ethelwerd, the youngest, by the Divine
counsels and admirable prudence of the king, was consigned to
the schools of learning, where, with the children of almost
all the nobility of the country, and many also who were not
noble, he prospered under the diligent care of his teachers.
Books in both languages, namely, in Latin and Saxon, were read
in the school. They also learned to write; so that, before
they were of an age to practise manly arts, namely hunting and
such other pursuits as befit noblemen, they became studious
and clever in the liberal arts. Edward and Ethelswitha were
bred up in the king's court, and received great attention from
their servants and nurses; nay, they continue to this day,
with the love of all about them, and shew affability, and even
gentleness, towards all, both foreigners and natives, and are
in complete subjection to their father; nor, among their other
studies which appertain to this life and are fit for noble
youths, are they suffered to pass their time idly and
unprofitably, without learning the liberal arts; for they have
carefully learned the Psalms and Saxon books, especially the
Saxon Poems, and are continually in the habit of making use of
books.' The schools of learning, to which Asser alludes in
this passage, as formed for the use of the king's children and
the sons of his nobles, are again mentioned elsewhere by the
same author, as 'the school which he had studiously collected
together, consisting of many of the nobility of his own
nation:' and in a third passage, Asser speaks of the 'sons of
the nobility who were bred up in the royal household.' It is
clear, then, from these expressions, that the king's exertions
to spread learning among his nobles and to educate his own
children, were of a most active and personal nature,
unconnected with any institutions of a more public character:
the school was kept in his own household, and not in a public
seat of learning. We may perhaps adduce these expressions of
Asser as militating against the notion, that an University or
Public Seminary of Learning existed in the days of Alfred.
Though it is most probable that the several monasteries, and
other societies of monks and churchmen, would employ a portion
of their idle time in teaching youth, and prosecuting their
own studies; yet there is no proof that an authorized seat of
learning, such as the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge,
existed in England, until many hundred years after the time of
Alfred."
J. A. Giles, Life and Times of Alfred the Great, chapter 21.
EDUCATION:
Saracenic and Moorish learning.
"Even as early as the tenth century, persons having a taste
for learning and for elegant amenities found their way into
Spain from all adjoining countries; a practice in subsequent
years still more indulged in, when it became illustrated by
the brilliant success of Gilbert, who ... passed from the
Infidel University of Cordova to the papacy of Rome. The
khalifs of the West carried out the precepts of Ali, the
fourth successor of Mohammed, in the patronage of literature.
They established libraries in all their chief towns; it is
said that not fewer than seventy were in existence. To every
mosque was attached a public school, in which the children of
the poor were taught to read and write, and instructed in the
precepts of the Koran. For those in easier circumstances there
were academies, usually arranged in twenty-five or thirty
apartments, each calculated for accommodating four students;
the academy being presided over by a rector. In Cordova,
Granada, and other great cities, there were universities
frequently under the superintendence of Jews; the Mohammedan
maxim being that the real learning of a man is of more public
importance than any particular religious opinions he may
entertain. In this they followed the example of the Asiatic
khalif, Haroun Alraschid, who actually conferred the
superintendence of his schools on John Masué, a Nestorian
Christian. The Mohammedan liberality was in striking contrast
with the intolerance of Europe. ... In the universities some
of the professors of polite literature gave lectures on Arabic
classical works; others taught rhetoric or composition, or
mathematics, or astronomy. From these institutions many of the
practices observed in our colleges were derived. They held
Commencements, at which poems were read and orations delivered
in presence of the public. They had also, in addition to these
schools of general learning, professional ones, particularly
for medicine. With a pride perhaps not altogether inexcusable,
the Arabians boasted of their language as being the most
perfect spoken by man. ... It is not then surprising that, in
the Arabian schools, great attention was paid to the study of
language, and that so many celebrated grammarians were
produced. By these scholars, dictionaries, similar to those
now in use, were composed; their copiousness is indicated by
the circumstance that one of them consisted of sixty volumes,
the definition of each word being illustrated or sustained by
quotations from Arab authors of acknowledged repute. They had
also lexicons of Greek, Latin, Hebrew; and cyclopedias such as
the Historical Dictionary of Sciences of Mohammed Ibn
Abdallah, of Granada."
J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of
Europe, volume 2, chapter 2.
"The Saracenic kings formed libraries of unparalleled size and
number. That of Hakem amounted to 600,000 volumes, of which 44
were employed in the mere catalogue. Upwards of 70 public
libraries were established in his dominions. 100,000 volumes
were numbered in the library of Cairo, and were freely lent to
the studious citizen. The taste of the sovereign communicated
itself to the subject, and a private doctor declared that his
books were sufficient to load 400 camels.
{691}
Nor were the Saracens less attentive to the foundation
of schools and colleges. Eighty of the latter institutions
adorned Cordova in the reign of Hakem; in the fifteenth
century fifty were scattered over the city and plain of
Granada. 200,000 dinars (about £100,000 sterling) were
expended on the foundation of a single college at Baghdad. It
was endowed with an annual revenue of 15,000 dinars, and was
attended by 6,000 students. The princes of the house of Omeya
honoured the Spanish academies by their presence and studies,
and competed, not without success, for the prizes of learning.
Numerous schools for the purpose of elementary instruction
were founded by a long series of monarchs. ... In this manner
the Arabians, within two centuries, constructed an apparatus
for mental improvement which hitherto had not been equalled
save in Alexandria, and to which the Church, after ruling the
intellect of Europe for more than five hundred years, could
offer no parallel."
The Intellectual Revival of the Middle Ages
(Westminster Review, January, 1876).
EDUCATION:
Scholasticism.
Schoolmen.
In the later times of the Roman empire, "the loss of the
dignity of political freedom, the want of the cheerfulness of
advancing prosperity, and the substitution of the less
philosophical structure of the Latin language for the delicate
intellectual mechanism of the Greek, fixed and augmented the
prevalent feebleness and barrenness of intellect. Men forgot,
or feared, to consult nature, to seek for new truths, to do
what the great discoverers of other times had done; they were
content to consult libraries, to study and defend old
opinions, to talk of what great geniuses had said. They sought
their philosophy in accredited treatises, and dared not
question such doctrines as they there found. ... In the mean
time the Christian religion had become the leading subject of
men's thoughts; and divines had put forward its claims to be,
not merely the guide of men's lives, and the means of
reconciling them to their heavenly Master, but also to be a
Philosophy in the widest sense in which the term had been
used;--a consistent speculative view of man's condition and
nature, and of the world in which he is placed. ... It was
held, without any regulating principle, that the philosophy
which had been bequeathed to the world by the great geniuses
of heathen antiquity, and the philosophy which was deduced
from, and implied by, the Revelations made by God to man, must
be identical; and, therefore, that Theology is the only true
philosophy. ... This view was confirmed by the opinion which
prevailed, concerning the nature of philosophical truth; a
view supported by the theory of Plato, the practice of
Aristotle, and the general propensities of the human mind: I
mean the opinion that all science may be obtained by the use
of reasoning alone;--that by analyzing and combining the
notions which common language brings before us, we may learn
all that we can know. Thus Logic came to include the whole of
Science; and accordingly this Abelard expressly maintained.
... Thus a Universal Science was established, with the
authority of a Religious Creed. Its universality rested on
erroneous views of the relation of words and truth; its
pretensions as a science were admitted by the servile temper
of men's intellects; and its religious authority was assigned
it, by making all truth part of religion. And as Religion
claimed assent within her own jurisdiction under the most
solemn and imperative sanctions, Philosophy shared in her
imperial power, and dissent from their doctrines was no longer
blameless or allowable. Error became wicked, dissent became
heresy; to reject the received human doctrines, was nearly the
same as to doubt the Divine declarations. The Scholastic
Philosophy claimed the assent of all believers. The external
form, the details, and the text of this Philosophy, were
taken, in a great measure, from Aristotle; though, in the
spirit, the general notions, and the style of interpretation,
Plato and the Platonists had no inconsiderable share. ... It
does not belong to our purpose to consider either the
theological or the metaphysical doctrines which form so large
a portion of the treatises of the schoolmen. Perhaps it may
hereafter appear, that some light is thrown on some of the
questions which have occupied metaphysicians in all ages, by
that examination of the history of the Progressive Sciences in
which we are now engaged; but till we are able to analyze the
leading controversies of this kind, it would be of little
service to speak of them in detail. It may be noticed,
however, that many of the most prominent of them refer to the
great question, 'What is the relation between actual things
and general terms?' Perhaps in modern times, the actual things
would be more commonly taken as the point to start from; and
men would begin by considering how classes and universals are
obtained from individuals. But the schoolmen, founding their
speculations on the received modes of considering such
subjects, to which both Aristotle and Plato had contributed,
travelled in the opposite direction, and endeavored to
discover how individuals were deduced from genera and
species;--what was 'the Principle of Individuation.' This was
variously stated by different reasoners. Thus Bonaventura
solves the difficulty by the aid of the Aristotelian
distinction of Matter and Form. The individual derives from
the Form the property of being something, and from the Matter
the property of being that particular thing. Duns Scotus, the
great adversary of Thomas Aquinas in theology, placed the
principle of Individuation in 'a certain determining positive
entity,' which his school called Hæcceity or 'thisness.' 'Thus
an individual man is Peter, because his humanity is combined
with Petreity.' The force of abstract terms is a curious
question, and some remarkable experiments in their use had
been made by the Latin Aristotelians before this time. In the
same way in which we talk of the quantity and quality of a
thing, they spoke of its 'quiddity.' We may consider the reign
of mere disputation as fully established at the time of which
we are now speaking [the Middle Ages]; and the only kind of
philosophy henceforth studied was one in which no sound
physical science had or could have a place."
W. Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1).
"Scholasticism was philosophy in the service of established
and accepted theological doctrines. ... More particularly,
Scholasticism was the reproduction of ancient philosophy under
the control of ecclesiastical doctrine. ... The name of
Scholastics (doctores scholastici) which was given to the
teachers of the septem liberales artes [seven liberal arts]
(grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, in the Trivium; arithmetic,
geometry, music and astronomy, in the Quadrivium), or at least
some of them, in the Cloister-Schools founded by Charlemagne,
as also to teachers of theology, was afterwards given to all
who occupied themselves with the sciences, and especially with
philosophy. ... Johannes Scotus, or Erigena [ninth century]
is the earliest noteworthy philosopher of the Scholastic
period. He was of Scottish nationality, but was probably born
and brought up in Ireland. At the call of Charles the Bald he
emigrated to France."
F. Ueberweg, History of Philosophy,
volume 1, pages 355-484.
{692}
"Scholasticism, at the last, from the prodigious mental
activity which it kept up, became a tacit universal
insurrection against authority: it was the swelling of the
ocean before the storm. ... It was a sign of a great awakening
of the human mind when theologians thought it both their duty
and their privilege to philosophize. There was a vast waste of
intellectual labor, but still it was intellectual labor, and,
as we shall see, it was not in the end unfruitful."
C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval
History, chapter 13.
"Scholasticism had its hour of glory, its erudite doctors, its
eloquent professors, chief among whom was Abelard (1070-1142).
... At a time when printing did not exist, when manuscript
copies were rare, a teacher who combined knowledge with the
gift of speech was a phenomenon of incomparable interest, and
students flocked from all parts of Europe to take advantage of
his lectures. Abelard is the most brilliant representative of
the scholastic pedagogy, with an original and personal
tendency towards the emancipation of the mind. 'It is
ridiculous,' he said, 'to preach to others what we can neither
make them understand nor understand ourselves.' With more
boldness than Saint Anselm, he applied dialectics to theology,
and attempted to reason out the grounds of his faith. The
seven liberal arts constituted what may be called the
secondary instruction of the Middle Age, such as was given in
the claustral or conventual schools, and later, in the
universities. The liberal arts were distributed into two
courses of study, known as the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium.'
The 'trivium' comprised grammar (Latin grammar, of course),
dialectics, or logic, and rhetoric; and the 'quadrivium,'
music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. It is important to
note the fact that this programme contains only abstract and
formal studies,--no real and concrete studies. The sciences
which teach us to know man and the world, such as history,
ethics, the physical and natural sciences, were omitted and
unknown, save perhaps in a few convents of the Benedictines.
Nothing which can truly educate man, and develop his faculties
as a whole, enlists the attention of the Middle Age. From a
course of study thus limited there might come skillful
reasoners and men formidable in argument, but never fully
developed men. The methods employed in the ecclesiastical
schools of the Middle Age were in accord with the spirit of
the times, when men were not concerned about liberty and
intellectual freedom; and when they thought more about the
teaching of dogmas than about the training of the
intelligence. The teachers recited or read their lectures, and
the pupils learned by heart. The discipline was harsh. Corrupt
human nature was distrusted. In 1363, pupils were forbidden
the use of benches and chairs, on the pretext that such high
seats were an encouragement to pride. For securing obedience,
corporal chastisements were used and abused. The rod is in
fashion in the fifteenth as it was in the fourteenth century.
'There is no other difference,' says an historian, 'except
that the rods in the fifteenth century are twice as long as
those in the fourteenth.'"
G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy,
trans. by W. H. Payne, chapter 4.
EDUCATION: Universities, Their Rise.
Abelard.
"Up to the end of the eleventh century the instruction was,
speaking generally, and allowing for transitory periods of
revival, and for a few exceptional schools, a shrunken
survival of the old 'trivium et quadrivium.' The lessons, when
not dictated and learnt by heart from notes, were got up from
bald epitomes. All that was taught, moreover, was taught
solely with a view to 'pious uses.' Criticism did not exist;
the free spirit of speculation could not, of course, exist.
... As we approach the period which saw the birth of those
institutions known as Studia Publica or Generalia, and ere
long to be known as 'universities,' we have to extend our
vision and recognize the circumstances of the time, and those
changes in the social condition of Europe which made great
central schools possible--schools to be frequented not merely
by the young ecclesiastic, but by laymen. Among other causes
which led to the diffusion of a demand for education among the
laity, was, I think, the institution or reorganization of
municipalities. It was about the end of the eleventh century
that the civic Communes (Communia) began to seek and obtain,
from royal and other authorities, charters of incorporation
constituting their internal government and conferring certain
freedoms and privileges as against the encroachment of lay and
ecclesiastical feudal barons. ... About the same time, and
somewhat prior to this, trade guilds had been formed in many
cities for mutual protection, the advancement of commerce, and
the internal regulation of the various crafts. There
immediately followed a desire for schools in the more
important commercial towns. In Italy such schools arose in
Bologna, Milan, Brescia, and Florence; and in Germany they
arose in Lübeck, Hamburg, Breslau, Nordhausen, Stettin,
Leipsic, and Nürnberg. The distinctive characteristic of these
city schools was, that they do not seem to have been under the
direct control of the Church, or to have been always taught by
priests; further, that the native tongue (German or Italian,
as the case might be) was taught. Reading, writing, and a
little arithmetic seem to have formed the staple of the
instruction. The custom of dictating, writing down, and then
learning by heart what was written--universal in the schools
of the preceding centuries--was, of course, still followed in
these burgh schools. This custom was almost inevitable. ...
The increased communication with Africa and the East through
the Crusades had introduced men to a standard of learning
among the Arabs, unknown in Europe. Outside the school, the
order of chivalry had introduced a new and higher ethical
spirit than had been known in the previous centuries. Civic
communities and trade guilds were forming themselves and
seeking charters of incorporation. Above all; the Crusades, by
stimulating the ardour and exciting the intellects of men, had
unsettled old convention by bringing men of all ranks within
the sacred circle of a common enthusiasm, and into contact
with foreign civilizations.
{693}
The desire for a higher education, and the impulse to more
profound investigation, that characterized the beginning and
course of the twelfth century, was thus only a part of a
widespread movement, political and moral. ... While the
Romano-Hellenic schools had long disappeared, there still
existed, in many towns, episcopal schools of a high class,
many of which might be regarded as continuations of the old
imperial provincial institutions. ... In Bologna and Paris,
Rheims and Naples, it was so. The arts curriculum professed in
these centres was, for the time and state of knowledge, good.
These schools, indeed, had never quite lost the fresh impulse
given by Charlemagne and his successors. ... According to my
view of educational history, the great 'studia publica' or
'generalia' arose out of them. They were themselves, in a
narrow sense, already 'studia publica.' ... Looking, first, to
the germ out of which the universities grew, I think we must
say that the universities may be regarded as a natural
development of the cathedral and monastery schools; but if we
seek for an external motive force urging men to undertake the
more profound and independent study of the liberal arts, we
can find it only in the Saracenic schools of Bagdad, Babylon,
Alexandria, and Cordova. ... To fix precisely the date of the
rise of the first specialized schools or universities is
impossible, for the simple reason that they were not founded.
... The simplest account of the new university origins is the
most correct. It would appear that certain active-minded men
of marked eminence began to give instruction in medical
subjects at Salerno, and in law at Bologna, in a spirit and
manner not previously attempted, to youths who had left the
monastery and cathedral schools, and who desired to equip
themselves for professional life. Pupils flocked to them; and
the more able of these students, finding that there was a
public demand for this higher specialized instruction,
remained at headquarters, and themselves became teachers or
doctors. The Church did not found universities any more than
it founded the order of chivalry. They were founded by a
concurrence (not wholly fortuitous) of able men who had
something they wished to teach, and of youths who desired to
learn. None the less were the acquiescence and protection of
Church and State necessary in those days for the fostering of
these infant seminaries. ... Of the three great schools which
we have named, there is sufficient ground for believing that
the first to reach such a development as to entitle it to the
name of a studium generale or university was the 'Schola
Salernitana,' although it never was a university, technically
speaking."
S. S. Laurie, Rise and Early Constitution of
Universities, lectures 6-7.
"Ideas, till this time scattered, or watched over in the
various ecclesiastical schools, began to converge to a common
centre. The great name of University was recognised in the
capital of France, at the moment that the French tongue had
become almost universal. The conquests of the Normans, and the
first crusade, had spread its powerfully philosophic idiom in
every direction, to England, to Sicily, and to Jerusalem. This
circumstance alone invested France, central France, Paris,
with an immense attractive power. By degrees, Parisian French
became a proverb. Feudalism had found its political centre in
the royal city; and this city was about to become the capital
of human thought. The beginner of this revolution was not a
priest, but a handsome young man of brilliant talents, amiable
and of noble family. None wrote love verses, like his, in the
vulgar tongue; he sang them, too. Besides, his erudition was
extraordinary for that day. He alone, of his time, knew both
Greek and Hebrew. May be, he had studied at the Jewish schools
(there were many in the South), or under the rabbins of
Troyes, Vitry, or of Orleans. There were then in Paris two
leading schools: the old Episcopal school of the parvis Notre
Dame, and that of St. Geneviève, on the hill, where shone
William of Champeaux. Abelard joined his pupils, submitted to
him his doubts, puzzled him, laughed at him, and closed his
mouth. He would have served Anselm of Laon the same, had not
the professor, being a bishop, expelled him from his diocese.
In this fashion this knight-errant of logic went on, unhorsing
the most celebrated champions. He himself declared that he had
only renounced tilt and tourney through his passion for
intellectual combats. Henceforward, victorious and without a
rival, he taught at Paris and Melun, the residence of
Louis-le-Gros, and the lords flocked to hear him; anxious to
encourage one of themselves, who had discomfited the priests
on their own ground, and had silenced the ablest clerks.
Abelard's wonderful success is easily explained. All the lore
and learning which had been smothered under the heavy,
dogmatical forms of clerical instruction, and hidden in the
rude Latin of the middle age, suddenly appeared arrayed in the
simple elegance of antiquity, so that men seemed for the first
time to hear and recognise a human voice. The daring youth
simplified and explained everything; presenting philosophy in
a familiar form, and bringing it home to men's bosoms. He
hardly suffered the obscure or supernatural to rest on the
hardest mysteries of faith. It seemed as if till then the
Church had lisped and stammered; while Abelard spoke. All was
made smooth and easy. He treated religion courteously and
handled her gently, but she melted away in his hands. Nothing
embarrassed the fluent speaker: he reduced religion to
philosophy, and morality to humanity. 'Crime,' he said,
'consists not in the act, but in the intention.' It followed,
that there was no such thing as sins of habit or of
ignorance--'They who crucified Jesus, not knowing him to have
been the Saviour, were guilty of no sin.' What is original
sin?--'Less a sin, than a punishment.' But then, wherefore the
redemption and the passion, if there was no sin?--'It was an
act of pure love. God desired to substitute the law of love
for that of fear.'"
J. Michelet, History of France,
volume 1, book 4, chapter 4.
"It is difficult, by a mere perusal of Abelard's works, to
understand the effect he produced upon his hearers by the
force of his argumentation, whether studied or improvised, and
by the ardor and animation of his eloquence, and the grace and
attractiveness of his person. But the testimony of his
contemporaries is unanimous; even his adversaries themselves
render justice to his high oratorical qualities. No one ever
reasoned with more subtlety, or handled the dialectic tool
with more address; and assuredly, something of these qualities
is to be found in the writings he has left us. But the intense
life, the enthusiastic ardor which enlivened his discourses,
the beauty of his face, and the charm of his voice cannot be
imparted by cold manuscripts.
{694}
Héloise, whose name is inseparably linked with that of her
unfortunate husband, and whom Charles de Rémusat does not
hesitate to call 'the first of women'; who, in any case, was a
superior person of her time; Héloise, who loved Abelard with
'an immoderate love,' and who, under the veil of a
'religieuse' and throughout the practice of devotional duties,
remained faithful to him until death; Héloise said to him in
her famous letter of 1136: 'Thou hast two things especially
which could instantly win thee the hearts of all women: the
charm thou knowest how to impart to thy voice in speaking and
singing.' External gifts combined with intellectual qualities
to make of Abelard an incomparable seducer of minds and
hearts. Add to this an astonishing memory, a knowledge as
profound as was compatible with the resources of his time, and
a vast erudition which caused his contemporaries to consider
him a master of universal knowledge. ... How can one be
astonished that with such qualities Abelard gained an
extraordinary ascendency over his age; that, having become the
intellectual ruler and, as it were, the dictator of the
thought of the twelfth century, he should have succeeded in
attracting to his chair and in retaining around it thousands
of young men; the first germ of those assemblages of students
who were to constitute the universities several years later?
... It is not alone by the outward success of his scholastic
apostolate that Abelard merits consideration as the precursor
of the modern spirit and the promoter of the foundation of the
universities; it is also by his doctrine, or at least by his
method. ... No one claims that Abelard was the first who, in
the Middle Ages, had introduced dialectics into theology,
reason into authority. In the ninth century, Scotus Erigena
had already said: 'Authority is derived from reason.'
Scholasticism, which is nothing but logic enlightening
theology, an effort of reason to demonstrate dogma, had begun
before Abelard; but it was he who gave movement and life to
the method by lending it his power and his renown."
G. Compayré, Abelard, part 1, chapter 2-3.
EDUCATION: Latin Language.
"Greek was an unknown tongue: only a very few of the Latin
classics received a perfunctory attention: Boethius was
preferred to Cicero, and the Moral Sentences ascribed to Cato
to either. Rules couched in barbarous Latin verse were
committed to memory. Aristotle was known only in incorrect
Latin translations, which many of the taught, and some of the
teachers probably, supposed to be the originals. Matters were
not mended when the student, having passed through the
preliminary course of arts, advanced to the study of the
sciences. Theology meant an acquaintance with the 'Sentences'
of Peter Lombard, or, in other cases, with the 'Summa' of
Thomas Aquinas; in medicine, Galen was an authority from which
there was no appeal. On every side the student was fenced
round by traditions and prejudices, through which it was
impossible to break. In truth, he had no means of knowing that
there was a wider and fairer world beyond. Till the classical
revival came, every decade made the yoke of prescription
heavier, and each generation of students, therefore, a feebler
copy of the last."
C. Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation, chapter 3.
"What at first had been everywhere a Greek became in Western
Europe a Latin religion. The discipline of Rome maintained the
body of doctrine which the thought of Greece had defined. A
new Latin version, superseding alike the venerable Greek
translation of the Old Testament and the original words of
Evangelists and Apostles, became the received text of Holy
Scripture. The Latin Fathers acquired an authority scarcely
less binding. The ritual, lessons, and hymns of the Church
were Latin. Ecclesiastics transacted the business of civil
departments requiring education. Libraries were armories of
the Church: grammar was part of her drill. The humblest
scholar was enlisted, in her service: she recruited her ranks
by founding Latin schools. 'Education in the rudiments of
Latin,' says Hallam, 'was imparted to a greater number of
individuals than at present;' and, as they had more use for it
than at present, it was longer retained. If a boy of humble
birth had a taste for letters, or if a boy of high birth had a
distaste for arms, the first step was to learn Latin. His foot
was then on the ladder. He might rise by the good offices of
his family to a bishopric, or to the papacy itself by merit
and the grace of God. Latin enabled a Greek from Tarsus
(Theodore) to become the founder of learning in the English
church; and a Yorkshireman (Alcuin) to organize the schools of
Charlemagne. Without Latin, our English Winfrid (St. Boniface)
could not have been apostle of Germany and reformer of the
Frankish Church; or the German Albert, master at Paris of
Thomas Aquinas; or Nicholas Breakspeare, Pope of Rome. With
it, Western Christendom was one vast field of labor: calls for
self-sacrifice, or offers of promotion, might come from north
or south, from east or west. Thus in the Middle Ages Latin was
made the groundwork of education; not for the beauty of its
classical literature, nor because the study of a dead language
was the best mental gymnastic, or the only means of acquiring
a masterly freedom in the use of living tongues, but because
it was the language of educated men throughout Western Europe,
employed for public business, literature, philosophy, and
science; above all, in God's providence, essential to the
unity, and therefore enforced by the authority of, the Western
Church."
C. S. Parker, Essay on the History of Classical Education
(quoted in Dr. Henry Barnard's "Letters, Essays and
Thoughts on Studies and Conduct," page 467).
EDUCATION: France.
"The countries of western Europe, leavened, all of them, by
the one spirit of the feudal and catholic Middle Age, formed
in some sense one community, and were more associated than
they have been since the feudal and catholic unity of the
Middle Age has disappeared and given place to the divided and
various life of modern Europe. In the mediæval community
France held the first place. It is now well known that to
place in the 15th century the revival of intellectual life and
the re-establishment of civilisation, and to treat the period
between the 5th century, when ancient civilisation was ruined
by the barbarians, and the 15th, when the life and intellect
of this civilisation reappeared and transformed the world, as
one chaos, is a mistake. The chaos ends about the 10th
century; in the 11th there truly comes the first
re-establishment of civilisation, the first revival of
intellectual life; the principal centre of this revival is
France, its chief monuments of literature are in the French
language, its chief monuments of art are the French cathedrals.
{695}
This revival fills the 12th and 13th centuries with its
activity and with its works; all this time France has the
lead; in the 14th century the lead passes to Italy; but now
comes the commencement of a wholly new period, the period of
the Renaissance properly so called, the beginning of modern
European life, the ceasing of the life of the feudal and
catholic Middle Age. The anterior and less glorious
Renaissance, the Renaissance within the limits of the Middle
Age itself, a revival which came to a stop and could not
successfully develop itself, but which has yet left profound
traces in our spirit and our literature,--this revival belongs
chiefly to France. France, then, may well serve as a typical
country wherein to trace the mediæval growth of intellect and
learning; above all she may so stand for us, whose connection
with her in the Middle Age, owing to our Norman kings and the
currency of her language among our cultivated class, was so
peculiarly close; so close that the literary and intellectual
development of the two countries at that time intermingles,
and no important event can happen in that of the one without
straightway affecting and interesting that of the other. ...
With the hostility of the long French Wars of Edward the Third
comes the estrangement, never afterwards diminishing but
always increasing."
M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 1.
EDUCATION:
University of Paris.
"The name of Abelard recalls the European celebrity and
immense intellectual ferment of this school [of Paris] in the
12th century. But it was in the first year of the following
century, the 13th, that it received a charter from Philip
Augustus, and thenceforth the name of University of Paris
takes the place of that of School of Paris. Forty-nine years
later was founded University College, Oxford, the oldest
college of the oldest English University. Four nations
composed the University of Paris,--the nation of France, the
nation of Picardy, the nation of Normandy, and (signal mark of
the close intercourse which then existed between France and
us!) the nation of England. The four nations united formed the
faculty of arts. The faculty of theology was created in 1257,
that of law in 1271, that of medicine in 1274. Theology, law,
and medicine had each their Dean; arts had four Procurators,
one for each of the four nations composing this faculty. Arts
elected the rector of the University, and had possession of
the University chest and archives. The preeminence of the
Faculty of Arts indicates, as indeed does the very development
of the University, an idea, gradually strengthening itself, of
a lay instruction to be no longer absorbed in theology, but
separable from it. The growth of a lay and modern spirit in
society, the preponderance of the crown over the papacy, of
the civil over the ecclesiastical power, is the great feature
of French history in the 14th century, and to this century
belongs the highest development of the University. ... The
importance of the University in the 13th and 14th centuries
was extraordinary. Men's minds were possessed with a wonderful
zeal for knowledge, or what was then thought knowledge, and
the University of Paris was the great fount from which this
knowledge issued. The University and those depending on it
made at this time, it is said, actually a third of the
population of Paris; when the University went on a solemn
occasion in procession to Saint Denis, the head of the
procession, it is said, had reached St. Denis before the end
of it had left its starting place in Paris. It had immunities
from taxation, it had jurisdiction of its own, and its members
claimed to be exempt from that of the provost of Paris; the
kings of France strongly favoured the University, and leaned
to its side when the municipal and academical authorities were
in conflict; if at any time the University thought itself
seriously aggrieved, it had recourse to a measure which threw
Paris into dismay,--it shut up its schools and suspended its
lectures. In a body of this kind the discipline could not be
strict, and the colleges were created to supply centres of
discipline which the University in itself,--an apparatus
merely of teachers and lecture-rooms,--did not provide. The
14th century is the time when, one after another, with
wonderful rapidity, the French colleges appeared. Navarre,
Montaigu, Harcourt, names so familiar in the school annals of
France, date from the first quarter of the 14th century. The
College of Navarre was founded by the queen of Philip the
Fair, in 1304; the College of Montaigu, where Erasmus,
Rabelais, and Ignatius Loyola were in their time students, was
founded in 1314 by two members of the family of Montaigu, one
of them Archbishop of Rouen. The majority of these colleges
were founded by magnates of the church, and designed to
maintain a certain number of bursars, or scholars, during
their university course. ... Along with the University of
Paris there existed in France, in the 14th century, the
Universities of Orleans, Angers, Toulouse, and Montpellier.
Orleans was the great French school for the study of the civil
law. ... The civil law was studiously kept away from the
University of Paris, for fear it should drive out other
studies, and especially the study of theology; so late as the
year 1679 there was no chair of Roman or even of French law in
the University of Paris. The strength of this University was
concentrated on theology and arts, and its celebrity arose
from the multitude of students which in these branches of
instruction it attracted."
M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on the Continent,
chapter 1.
EDUCATION:
The Sorbonne.
The University of Paris acquired the name of "the Sorbonne"
"from Robert of Sorbon, aulic chaplain of St. Louis, who
established one of the 63 colleges of the University. ... The
name of Sorbonne was first applied to the theological faculty
only; but at length the whole University received this
designation."
J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 24, foot-note.
EDUCATION:
The Nations.
"The precise date of the organization at Paris of the four
Nations which maintained themselves there until the latest
days of the university escapes the most minute research.
Neither for the Nations nor for the Faculties was there any
sudden blossoming, but rather a slow evolution, an insensible
preparation for a definite condition. Already at the close of
the twelfth century there is mention in contemporary documents
of the various provinces of the school of Paris. The Nations
are mentioned in the bulls of Gregory IX. (1231) and of
Innocent IV. (1245). In 1245, they already elect their
attendants, the beadles. In 1249, the existence of the four
Nations--France, Picardy, Normandy, and England--is proved by
their quarrels over the election of a rector. ... Until the
definitive constitution of the Faculties, that is, until 1270
or 1280, the four Nations included the totality of students
and masters.
{696}
After the formation of the Faculties, the four Nations
comprised only the members of the Faculty of Arts and those
students of other Faculties who had not yet obtained the grade
of Bachelor of Arts. The three superior Faculties, Theology,
Medicine, and Law, had nothing in common thenceforward with
the Nations. ... At Bologna, as at Paris, the Nations were
constituted in the early years of the thirteenth century, but
under a slightly different form. There the students were
grouped in two distinct associations, the Ultramontanes and
the Citramontanes, the foreigners and the Italians, who formed
two universities, the Transalpine and the Cisalpine, each with
its chiefs, who were not styled procurators but counsellors;
the first was composed of eighteen Nations and the second of
seventeen. At Padua twenty-two Nations were enumerated.
Montpellier had only three in 1339,--the Catalans, the
Burgundians, the Provençals; each sub-divided, however, into
numerous groups. Orleans had ten: France, Germany, Lorraine,
Burgundy, Champagne, Picardy, Normandy, Touraine, Guyanne, and
Scotland; Poitiers had four: France, Aquitaine, Touraine, and
Berry; Prague had four also, in imitation of Paris; Lerida had
twelve, in imitation of Bologna, etc. But whether more or less
numerous, and whatever their special organization, the Nations
in all the universities bore witness to that need of
association which is one of the characteristics of the Middle
Ages. ... One of the consequences of their organization was to
prevent the blending and fusion of races, and to maintain the
distinction of provinces and nationalities among the pupils of
the same university."
G. Compayré, Abelard, part 2, chapter 2.
EDUCATION: Italy
Revived Study of Roman Law.
"It is known that Justinian established in Rome a school of
law, similar to those of Constantinople and Berytus. When Rome
ceased to be subject to Byzantine rule, this law-school seems
to have been transferred to Ravenna, where it continued to keep
alive the knowledge of the Justinian system. That system
continued to be known and used, from century to century, in a
tradition never wholly interrupted, especially in the free
cities of Northern Italy. It seems even to have penetrated
beyond Italy into Southern France. But it was destined to
have, at the beginning of the twelfth century, a very
extraordinary revival. This revival was part of a general
movement of the European mind which makes its appearance at
that epoch. The darkness which settled down on the world, at
the time of the barbarian invasions, had its midnight in the
ninth and tenth centuries. In the eleventh, signs of progress
and improvement begin to show themselves, becoming more
distinct towards its close, when the period of the Crusades
was opening upon Europe. Just at this time we find a famous
school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by
multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but
from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all
its instruction was the Corpus Juris Civilis [see CORPUS JURIS
CIVILIS]. Its teachers, who constitute a series of
distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half,
devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and
elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially
the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed
down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name
of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were
accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal
explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be
an immense literature. ... Here, then, in this school of the
glossators, at Bologna, in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, the awakened mind of Europe was brought to
recognize the value of the Corpus Juris, the almost
inexhaustible treasure of juristic principles, precepts,
conceptions, reasonings, stored up in it."
Jas. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.
EDUCATION: Italy
University of Bologna.
"In the twelfth century the law school of the University of
Bologna eclipsed all others in Europe. The two great branches
of legal study in the middle ages, the Roman law and the canon
law, began in the teaching of Irnerius and Gratian at Bologna
in the first half of the twelfth century. At the beginning of
this century the name of university first replaces that of
school; and it is said that the great university degree, that
of doctor, was first instituted at Bologna, and that the
ceremony for conferring it was devised there. From Bologna the
degree and its ceremonial travelled to Paris. A bull of Pope
Honorius, in 1220, says that the study of 'bomæ literæ' had at
that time made the city of Bologna famous throughout the
world. Twelve thousand students from all parts of Europe are
said to have been congregated there at once. The different
nations had their colleges, and of colleges at Bologna there
were fourteen. These were founded and endowed by the
liberality of private persons; the university professors, the
source of attraction to this multitude of students, were paid
by the municipality, who found their reward in the fame,
business, and importance brought to their town by the
university. The municipalities of the great cities of northern
and central Italy were not slow in following the example of
Bologna; in the thirteenth century Padua, Modena, Piacenza,
Parma, Ferrara, had each its university. Frederick II. founded
that of Naples in 1224; in the fourteenth century were added
those of Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, and Turin. Colleges of
examiners, or, as we should say, boards, were created by Papal
bull to examine in theology, and by imperial decree to examine
in law and medicine. It was in these studies of law and
medicine that the Italian universities were chiefly
distinguished."
M. Arnold, Schools and Universities
on the Continent, chapter 9.
"The Bologna School of jurisprudence was several times
threatened with total extinction. In the repeated difficulties
with the city the students would march out of the town, bound
by a solemn oath not to return; and if a compromise was to be
effected, a papal dispensation from that oath must first be
obtained. Generally on such occasions, the privileges of the
university were reaffirmed and often enlarged. In other cases,
a quarrel between the pope and the city, and the ban placed
over the latter, obliged the students to leave; and then the
city often planned and furthered the removal of the
university. King Frederic II., in 1226, during the war against
Bologna, dissolved the school of jurisprudence, which seems to
have been not at all affected thereby, and he formally
recalled that ordinance in the following year. Originally the
only school in Bologna was the school of jurisprudence, and in
connection with it alone a university could be formed. ....
Subsequently eminent teachers of medicine and the liberal arts
appeared, and their pupils, too, sought to form a university
and to choose their own rector.
{697}
As late as 1295 this innovation was disputed by the jurists
and interdicted by the city, so that they had to connect
themselves with the university of jurisprudence. But a few
years later we find them already in possession again of a few
rectors, and in 1316 their right was formally recognized in a
compromise between the university of jurisprudence and the
city. The students called themselves 'philosophi et medici' or
'physici'; also by the common name of 'artistæ.' Finally a
school of theology, founded by pope Innocent VI., was added in
the second half of the 14th century; it was placed under the
bishop, and organized in imitation of the school at Paris, so
that it was a 'universitas magistrorum,' not 'scholarium.' As,
however, by this arrangement the students of theology in the
theological university had no civil privileges of their own,
they were considered individually as belonging to the
'artistæ.' From this time Bologna had four universities, two
of jurisprudence, the one of medicine and philosophy, and the
theological, the first two having no connection with the
others, forming a unit, and therefore frequently designated as
one university."
F. C. Savigny, The Universities of the Middle Ages
(Barnard's American Journal of Education,
volume 22, pages 278-279).
EDUCATION:
Other Universities.
"The oldest and most frequented university in Italy, that of
Bologna, is represented as having flourished in the twelfth
century. Its prosperity in early times depended greatly on the
personal conduct of the principal professors, who, when they
were not satisfied with their entertainment, were in the habit
of seceding with their pupils to other cities. Thus high
schools were opened from time to time in Modena, Reggio, and
elsewhere by teachers who broke the oaths that bound them to
reside in Bologna, and fixed their centre of education in a
rival town. To make such temporary changes was not difficult
in an age when what we have to call an university, consisted
of masters and scholars, without college buildings, without
libraries, without endowments, and without scientific
apparatus. The technical name for such institutions seems to
have been 'studium scholarium,' Italianised into 'studio' or
'studio pubblico.' Among the more permanent results of these
secessions may be mentioned the establishment of the high
school at Vicenza by translation from Bologna in 1204, and the
opening of a school at Arezzo under similar circumstances in
1215; the great University of Padua first saw the light in
consequence of political discords forcing the professors to
quit Bologna for a season. The first half of the thirteenth
century witnessed the foundation of these 'studi' in
considerable numbers. That of Vercelli was opened in 1228, the
municipality providing two certified copyists for the
convenience of students who might wish to purchase textbooks.
In 1224 the Emperor Frederick II., to whom the south of Italy
owed a precocious eminence in literature, established the
University of Naples by an Imperial diploma. With a view to
rendering it the chief seat of learning in his dominions, he
forbade the subjects of the Regno to frequent other schools,
and suppressed the University of Bologna by letters general.
Thereupon Bologna joined the Lombard League, defied the
Emperor, and refused to close the schools, which numbered at
that period about ten thousand students of various
nationalities. In 1227 Frederick revoked his edict, and
Bologna remained thenceforward unmolested. Political and
internal vicissitudes, affecting all the Italian universities
at this period, interrupted the prosperity of that of Naples.
In the middle of the thirteenth century Salerno proved a
dangerous rival. ... An important group of 'studi pubblici'
owed their origin to Papal or Imperial charters in the first
half of the fourteenth century. That of Perugia was founded in
1307 by a Bull of Clement V. That of Rome dated from 1303, in
which year Boniface VIII. gave it a constitution by a special
edict; but the translation of the Papal See to Avignon caused
it to fall into premature decadence. The University of Pisa
had already existed for some years, when it received a charter
in 1343 from Clement VI. That of Florence was first founded in
1321. ... The subjects taught in the high schools were Canon
and Civil Law, Medicine, and Theology. These faculties,
important for the professional education of the public, formed
the staple of the academical curriculum. Chairs of Rhetoric,
Philosophy, and Astronomy were added according to occasion,
the last sometimes including the study of judicial astrology.
If we enquire how the humanists or professors of classic
literature were related to the universities, we find that, at
first at any rate, they always occupied a second rank. The
permanent teaching remained in the hands of jurists, who
enjoyed life engagements at a high rate of pay, while the
Latinists and Grecians could only aspire to the temporary
occupation of the Chair of Rhetoric, with salaries
considerably lower than those of lawyers or physicians."
J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: the Revival of
Learning, chapter 3.
"Few of the Italian universities show themselves in their full
vigour till the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the
increase of wealth rendered a more systematic care for
education possible. At first there were generally three sorts
of professorships--one for civil law, another for canonical
law, the third for medicine; in course of time professorships
of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of astronomy were added, the
last commonly, though not always, identical with astrology.
The salaries varied greatly in different cases. Sometimes a
capital sum was paid down. With the spread of culture
competition became so active that the different universities
tried to entice away distinguished teachers from one another,
under which circumstances Bologna is said to have sometimes
devoted the half of its public income (20,000 ducats) to the
university. The appointments were as a rule made only for a
certain time, sometimes for only half a year, so that the
teachers were forced to lead a wandering life, like actors.
Appointments for life were, however, not unknown. ... Of the
chairs which have been mentioned, that of rhetoric was
especially sought by the humanist; yet it depended only on his
familiarity with the matter of ancient learning whether or no
he could aspire to those of law, medicine, philosophy, or
astronomy. The inward conditions of the science of the day
were as variable as the outward conditions of the teacher.
Certain jurists and physicians received by far the largest
salaries of all, the former chiefly as consulting lawyers for
the suits and claims of the state which employed them. ...
{698}
Personal intercourse between the teachers and the taught,
public disputations, the constant use of Latin and often of
Greek, the frequent changes of lecturers and the scarcity of
books, gave the studies of that time a colour which we cannot
represent to ourselves without effort. There were Latin
schools in every town of the least importance, not by any
means merely as preparatory to higher education, but because,
next to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the knowledge of
Latin was a necessity; and after Latin came logic. It is to be
noted particularly that these schools did not depend on the
Church, but on the municipality; some of them, too, were
merely private enterprises. This school system, directed by a
few distinguished humanists, not only attained a remarkable
perfection of organisation, but became an instrument of higher
education in the modern sense of the phrase."
J. Burckhardt, The Civilisation of the Period
of the Renaissance in Italy, volume 1, part 3, chapter 5.
EDUCATION: Germany.
Prague and its Offspring.
"The earliest university in Germany was that of Prague. It was
in 1348, under the Emperor Charles IV., when the taste for
letters had revived so signally in Europe, when England may be
said to have possessed her two old universities already for
three centuries, Paris her Sorbonne already for four, that
this university was erected as the first of German
Universities. The idea originated in the mind of the Emperor,
who was educated in Paris, at the university of that town, and
was eagerly taken up by the townspeople of that ancient and
wealthy city, for they foresaw that affluence would shower
upon them if they could induce a numerous crowd of students to
flock together within their walls. But the Pope and the
Emperor took an active part in favouring and authorizing the
institution; they willingly granted to it wide privileges, and
made it entirely independent of Church and State. The teaching
of the professors, and the studies of the students, were
submitted to no control whatever. After the model of the
University of Paris, they divided themselves into different
faculties, and made four such divisions--one for divinity,
another for medical science, a third for law, and a fourth for
philosophy. The last order comprised those who taught and
learned the fine arts and the sciences, which two departments
were separate at Sorbonne. All the German universities have
preserved this outward constitution, and in this, as in many
other circumstances, the precedent of Prague has had a
prevailing influence on her younger sister institutions. The
same thing may be said particularly of the disciplinary tone
of the university. In other countries, universities sprang
from rigid clerical and monastic institutions, or bore a more
or less ecclesiastical character which imposed upon them
certain more retired habits, and a severer kind of discipline.
Prague took from the beginning a course widely different. The
students, who were partly Germans, partly of Slavonian blood,
enjoyed a boundless liberty. They lodged in the houses of the
townspeople, and by their riches, their mental superiority,
and their number (they are recorded to have been as many as
twenty thousand in the year 1409), became the undisputed
masters of the city. The professors and the inhabitants of
Prague, far from checking them, rather protected the
prerogatives of the students, for they found out that all
their prosperity depended on them. ... Not two generations had
passed since the erection of an institution thus constituted,
before Huss and Jerome of Prague began to teach the necessity
of an entire reformation of the Church. The phenomenon is
characteristic of the bold spirit of inquiry that must have
grown up at the new University. However, the political
consequences that attended the promulgation of such doctrines
led almost to the dissolution of the University itself. For,
the German part of the students broke up, in consequence of
repeated and serious quarrels that had taken place with the
Bohemian and Slavonic party, and went to Leipzig, where
straightway a new and purely German University was erected.
While Prague became the seat of a protracted and sanguinary
war, a great number of Universities rose into existence around
it, and attracted the crowds that had formerly flocked to the
Bohemian capital. It appeared as if Germany, though it had
received the impulse from abroad, would leave all other
countries behind itself in the erection and promotion of these
learned institutions, for all the districts of the land vied
with each other in creating universities. Thus arose those of
Rostock, Ingolstadt, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Erfurt,
Tübingen, Greifswalde, Trèves, Mayence and Bâles-schools which
have partly disappeared again during the political storms of
subsequent ages. The beginning of the sixteenth century added
to them one at Frankfort on the Oder, and another, the most
illustrious of all, Wittenberg. Everyone who is acquainted
with the history and origin of the Reformation, knows what an
important part the latter of these universities took in the
weighty transactions of those times. ... Wittenberg remained
by no means the only champion of Protestantism. At Marburg,
Jena, Königsberg, and Helmstadt, universities of a professedly
Protestant character were erected. These schools became the
cradle and nurseries of the Reformation."
The Universities of Germany
(Dublin University Magazine, volume 46, pages 83-85).
"The German universities of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries were founded in the following order: Prague, 1348;
Vienna, 1388; Erfurt, 1392; Leipsic, 1409; Rostock, 1419;
Greifswald, 1456; Freiburg, 1457; Ingolstadt, 1472; Tübingen,
1477; and Mayence, 1477. Thus, it will be seen that they were
established in quick succession--an unmistakable proof of the
growing scientific interest of the age."
F. V. N. Painter, History of Education,
chapter 3, section 5 (k).
EDUCATION: Netherlands.
"Tradition reports that a school had ... been founded at
Utrecht, by some zealous missionary, in the time of Charles
Martel, at which his son Pepin received his education. However
this may have been, the renown of the Utrecht School of St.
Martin is of very ancient date. ... During the invasion by the
Normans, this school at Utrecht was suppressed, but was
reëstablished in 917, and regained its former renown. The
Emperor, Henry the Fowler, placed here his three sons, Otto,
Henry and Bruno, to be educated, of whom the last became
afterward archbishop of Cologne and archduke of Lottringen,
and was noted for his extraordinary learning and friendship
for the poet Prudentius. At the beginning of the 12th century,
Utrecht possessed no less than five flourishing schools,
several of which had each a 'rector' in addition to the
priests who had the general control. At about the same time,
several convents became distinguished as educational
institutions, especially those of Egmond, Nymwegen,
Middleburg, in Zealand, and Aduwert, near Gröningen.
{699}
In Holland, as in Belgium, in addition to the schools that
were attached to the cathedrals, convents, and chapters, there
were established in the course of the twelfth century, by the
more wealthy communities, public schools especially designed
for the instruction of the citizens and laity. It is also
worthy of notice that the authority to open such schools was
always derived from the counts--by whom it was conferred,
sometimes upon the cities as an especial privilege, and
sometimes upon merely private persons as a mark of particular
favor. The jurisdiction of the feudal lords was the same here
as in Belgium; but while in the latter country, with the
exception perhaps of the elementary schools in some of the
cities, the right of supervision everywhere devolved upon the
chapters, instruction in these public schools of Holland was
wholly withdrawn from the clergy, and they were made
essentially secular in their character. The privilege of thus
establishing schools was conferred upon some of the cities at
the following dates:
Dort, by Count Floris V., A. D. 1290;
the Hague, 1322;
Leyden, 1324;
and Rotterdam in 1328, by William III.;
Delft and Amsterdam, in 1334, by William IV.;
Leyden again, 1357;
Haarlem, 1389;
Alkmar, 1398;
Hoorn, 1358 and 1390;
the Hague, 1393;
Schiedam and Ondewater, 1394;
and Rotterdam, in 1402, by Albert of Bavaria.
These schools, adds Stallaert, on the authority of Buddingh,
were generally styled 'School en Schryfambacht,' 'Schoole en
Kostern,' (school and writing offices, schools and clerks'
houses,) and the 'Schoolmijsters' (school-masters) were looked
upon as professional men or craftsmen--as was the case also in
Belgium, where they formed distinct guilds and fraternities.
These public schools of Holland were divided into 'large' and
'small' schools, (groote en bijschoolen,) Latin being taught
in the first division. The institution at Zwolle, attained
special notoriety in the fourteenth century, under the
direction of the celebrated Johan Cele. According to Thomas à
Kempis and Ten Bussche, its pupils numbered about a thousand,
gathered from Holland, Belgium, and the principal provinces of
Germany."
Public Instruction in Holland
(Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 14).
EDUCATION: England.
Early Oxford.
"The University of Oxford did not spring into being in any
particular year, or at the bidding of any particular founder:
it was not established by any formal charter of incorporation.
Taking its rise in a small and obscure association of teachers
and learners, it developed spontaneously into a large and
important body, long before its existence was recognised by
prince or by prelate. There were certainly schools at Oxford
in the reign of Henry I., but the previous history of the
place does not throw much light on their origin, or explain
the causes of their popularity. The town seems to have grown
up under the shadow of a nunnery, which is said to have been
founded by St. Frideswyde as far back as the eighth century.
Its authentic annals, however, begin with the year 912, when
it was occupied and annexed by Edward the Elder, King of the
West Saxons. ... Oxford was considered a place of great
strategical importance in the eleventh century. Its position
on the borders of Mercia and Wessex rendered it also,
particularly convenient for parleys between Englishmen and
Danes, and for great national assemblies. ... Retaining for a
while its rank as one of the chief centres of political life
in the south of England, and as a suitable meeting-place for
parliaments and synods, Oxford became thenceforward more and
more distinctively known as a seat of learning and a nursery
of clerks. The schools which existed at Oxford before the
reign of King John, are so seldom and so briefly noticed in
contemporary records, that it would be difficult to show how
they developed into a great university, if it were not for the
analogy of kindred institutions in other countries. There can
be little doubt, however, that the idea of a university, the
systems of degrees and faculties, and the nomenclature of the
chief academical officers, were alike imported into England
from abroad. ... In the earliest and broadest sense of the
term, a university had no necessary connexion with schools or
literature, being merely a community of individuals bound
together by some more or less acknowledged tie. Regarded
collectively in this light, the inhabitants of any particular
town might be said to constitute a university, and in point of
fact the Commonalty of the townsmen of Oxford was sometimes
described as a university in formal documents of the middle
ages. The term was, however, specially applied to the whole
body of persons frequenting the schools of a large studium.
Ultimately it came to be employed in a technical sense as
synonymous with studium, to denote the institution itself.
This last use of the term seems to be of English origin, for
the University of Oxford is mentioned as such in writs and
ordinances of the years 1238, 1240, and 1253, whereas the
greater seat of learning on the banks of the Seine was, until
the year 1263, styled 'the University of the Masters,' or 'the
University of the Scholars,' of Paris. The system of
academical degrees dates from the second half of the twelfth
century."
H. C. M. Lyte, A History of the University
of Oxford, chapter 1.
"In the early Oxford ... of the twelfth and most of the
thirteenth centuries, colleges with their statutes were
unknown. The University was the only corporation of the
learned, and she struggled into existence after hard fights
with the town, the Jews, the Friars, the Papal courts. The
history of the University begins with the thirteenth century.
She may be said to have come into being as soon as she
possessed common funds and rents, as soon as fines were
assigned, or benefactions contributed to the maintenance of
scholars. Now the first recorded fine is the payment of
fifty-two shillings by the townsmen of Oxford as part of the
compensation for the hanging of certain clerks. In the year
1214 the Papal Legate, in a letter to his 'beloved sons in
Christ, the burgesses of Oxford,' bade them excuse the
'scholars studying in Oxford' half the rent of their halls, or
hospitia, for the space of ten years. The burghers were also
to do penance, and to feast the poorer students once a year;
but the important point is, that they had to pay that large
yearly fine 'propter suspendium clericorum'--all for the
hanging of the clerks. Twenty-six years after this decision of
the Legate, Robert Grossteste, the great Bishop of Lincoln,
organized the payment and distribution of the fine, and
founded the first of the chests, the chest of St. Frideswyde.
{700}
These chests were a kind of Mont de Piété, and to found them
was at first the favourite form of benefaction. Money was left
in this or that chest, from which students and masters would
borrow, on the security of pledges, which were generally
books, cups, daggers, and so forth. Now, in this affair of
1214 we have a strange passage of history, which happily
illustrates the growth of the University. The beginning of the
whole affair was the quarrel with the town, which in 1209, had
hanged two clerks, 'in contempt of clerical liberty.' The
matter was taken up by the Legate--in those bad years of King
John, the Pope's viceroy in England--and out of the
humiliation of the town the University gained money,
privileges, and halls at low rental. These were precisely the
things that the University wanted. About these matters there
was a constant strife, in which the Kings as a rule, took part
with the University. ... Thus gradually the University got the
command of the police, obtained privileges which enslaved the
city, and became masters where they had once been despised,
starveling scholars. ... The result, in the long run, was that
the University received from Edward III. 'a most large
charter, containing many liberties, some that they had before,
and others that he had taken away from the town.' Thus Edward
granted to the University 'the custody of the assize of bread,
wine, and ale,' the supervising of measures and weights, the
sole power of clearing the streets of the town and suburbs.
Moreover, the Mayor and the chief Burghers were condemned
yearly to a sort of public penance and humiliation on St.
Scholastica's Day. Thus, by the middle of the fourteenth
century, the strife of Town and Gown had ended in the complete
victory of the latter."
A. Lang, Oxford, chapter 2.
"To mark off the Middle Age from the Modern Period of the
University is certainly very difficult. Indeed the earlier
times do not form a homogeneous whole, but appear perpetually
shifting and preparing for a new state. The main transition
however was undoubtedly about the middle of the fourteenth
century; and the Reformation, a remarkable crisis, did but
confirm what had been in progress for more than a century and
a half: so that the Middle Age of the University contained the
thirteenth century, and barely the former half of the
fourteenth. ... There is no question, that during this Middle
Age the English Universities were distinguished far more than
ever afterwards by energy and variety of intellect. Later
times cannot produce a concentration of men eminent in all the
learning and science of the age, such as Oxford and Cambridge
then poured forth, mightily influencing the intellectual
development of all Western Christendom. Their names indeed may
warn us against an undiscriminating disparagement of the
Monasteries, as 'hotbeds of ignorance and stupidity'; when so
many of those worthies were monks of the Benedictine,
Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, or reformed Augustinian
order. But in consequence of this surpassing celebrity, Oxford
became the focus of a prodigious congregation of students, to
which nothing afterwards bore comparison. The same was
probably true of Cambridge in relative proportion. ... A
tolerably well authenticated account, attacked of late by
undue scepticism, fixes [the number of] those of Oxford at
thirty thousand, in the middle of the thirteenth century. The
want indeed of contemporary evidence must make us cautious of
yielding absolute belief to this: in fact we have no document
on this matter even as old as the Reformation. ... Not only
did the Church and the new orders of Monks draw great numbers
thither, but the Universities themselves were vast High
Schools, comprising boys and even children. It is not
extravagant, if Cambridge was not yet in great repute, to
imagine fifteen thousand students of all ages at Oxford, and
as many more attendants. Nor was it at all difficult to
accommodate them in the town, when Oxford contained three
hundred Halls and Inns: and as several students dwelt in one
room, and were not careful for luxury, each building on an
average might easily hold one hundred persons. The style of
Architecture was of the simplest and cheapest kind, and might
have been easily run up on a sudden demand: and a rich flat
country, with abundant water carriage, needed not to want
provisions. That the numbers were vast, is implied by the
highly respectable evidence which we have, that as many as
three thousand migrated from Oxford on the riots of 1209;
although the Chronicler expressly states that not all joined
in the secession. In the reign of Henry III. the reduced
numbers are reckoned at fifteen thousand. After the middle of
the fourteenth century, they were still as many as from three
to four thousand; and after the Reformation they mount again
to five thousand. On the whole therefore the computation of
thirty thousand, as the maximum, may seem, if not positively
true, yet the nearest approximation which we can expect. Of
Cambridge we know no more than that the numbers were much
lower than at Oxford. ... While in the general, there was a
substantial identity between the scholastic learning of Oxford
and of Paris, yet Oxford was more eager in following positive
science:--and this, although such studies were disparaged by
the Church, and therefore by the public. Indeed originally the
Church had been on the opposite side; but the speculative
tendency of the times had carried her over, so that
speculation and theology went hand in hand. In the middle of
the thirteenth century we may name Robert Grosseteste and John
Basingstock, as cultivating physical science, and (more
remarkable still) the Franciscan Roger Bacon: a man whom the
vulgar held to be equal to Merlin and Michael Scott as a
magician, and whom posterity ranks by the noblest spirits of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in all branches of
positive science,--except theology. A biography of Roger Bacon
should surely be written! Unfortunately, we know nothing as to
the influence of these men on their times, nor can we even
learn whether the University itself was at all interested in
their studies. ... We have ... a strange testimony to the
interest which in the beginning of the fourteenth century the
mass of the students took in the speculation of their elders;
for the street rows were carried on under the banners of
Nominalists and Realists. ... The coarse and ferocious manners
prevalent in the Universities of the Middle Ages are every
where in singular contrast to their intellectual pretensions:
but the Universities of the Continent were peaceful, decorous,
dignified,--compared with those of England. The storms which
were elsewhere occasional, were at Oxford the permanent
atmosphere. For nearly two centuries our 'Foster Mother' of
Oxford lived in a din of uninterrupted furious warfare; nation
against nation, school against school, faculty against
faculty. Halls, and finally Colleges, came forward as
combatants; and the University, as a whole, against the Town;
or against the Bishop of Lincoln; or against the Archbishop of
Canterbury. Nor was Cambridge much less pugnacious."
V. A. Huber, The English Universities,
volume 1, chapter 3.
{701}
EDUCATION:
Cambridge.
"Various facts and circumstances ... lend probability to the
belief that, long before the time when we have certain
evidence of the existence of Cambridge as a university, the
work of instruction was there going on. The Camboritum of the
Roman period, the Grantebrycgr of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
the Grentebrige of Domesday, must always have been a place of
some importance. It was the meeting-place of two great Roman
roads,--Akeman Street, running east and west, and the Via
Devana, traversing the north and the south. ... Confined at
first to the rising ground on the left bank of the river, it
numbered at the time of the Norman Conquest as many as four
hundred houses, of which twenty-seven were pulled down to make
way for the castle erected by William the Conqueror. ... Under
the castle walls, with the view, it would seem, of making some
atonement for many a deed of violence and wrong, the Norman
sheriff, Picot by name, founded the Church of St. Giles, and
instituted in connection with it a small body of secular
canons. ... The year 1112 was marked by the occurrence of an
event of considerable importance in connection with the
subsequent history of the university. The canons of St. Giles,
attended by a large concourse of the clergy and laity, crossed
the river, and took up their abode in a new and spacious
priory at Barnwell. ... The priory at Barnwell, which always
ranked among the wealthiest of the Cambridge foundations,
seems from the first to have been closely associated with the
university; and the earliest university exhibitions were those
founded by William de Kilkenny, bishop of Ely from 1254 to
1257, for two students of divinity, who were to receive
annually the sum of two marks from the priory. In the year
1133 was founded the nunnery of St. Rhadegund, which, in the
reign of Henry VII., was converted into Jesus College; and in
1135 a hospital of Augustinian canons, dedicated to St. John
the Evangelist, was founded by Henry Frost, a burgess of the
town. ... It was ... a very important foundation, inasmuch as
it not only became by conversion in the sixteenth century the
College of St. John the Evangelist, but was also ... the
foundation of which Peterhouse, the earliest Cambridge
college, may be said to have been in a certain sense the
offshoot. ... In the year 1229 there broke out at Paris a feud
of more than ordinary gravity between the students and the
citizens. Large numbers of the former migrated to the English
shores; and Cambridge, from its proximity to the eastern
coast, and as the centre where Prince Louis, but a few years
before, had raised the royal standard, seems to have attracted
the great majority. ... The university of Cambridge, like that
of Oxford, was modelled mainly on the university of Paris. Its
constitution was consequently oligarchic rather than
democratic, the government being entirely in the hands of the
teaching body, while the bachelors and undergraduates had no
share in the passing of new laws and regulations."
J. B. Mullinger, A History of the University of
Cambridge, chapter 1-2.
"The earliest existing college at Cambridge is St. Peter's,
generally called Peterhouse, historically founded A. D. 1257,
in the reign of Henry III. The Universities are known merely
by their situation; as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St.
Andrews'; but each college has a name, according to the taste
of its founder or first members. These names may be divided
into two classes, those named from the founder, as Pembroke,
Clare, Gonville and Caius (this had two founders, the restorer
being Dr. Kaye, who Latinized his name into Caius, always
pronounced Keys), King's (from King Henry VI.),--Queens' (from
the queens both of Henry VI. and Edward IV.), Sidney Sussex,
and Downing;--and those named for beatified persons and
objects of worship,--St. Peter's, St. John's, St. Catharine's,
St. Mary Magdalene, Corpus Christi, Emmanuel, Jesus Christ's,
Trinity and Trinity Hall. The apparent impiety of these names,
which in one case of an ancient name now changed, was
absolutely revolting, entirely passes off with a few days'
use. St. Catharine's soon becomes Cats, and St. Mary Magdalene
is always called Maudlin. You readily admit the superiority of
Trinity over Corpus ale; go to see a friend who lives on
Christ's piece; and hear with regret, that in the boat races
Emmanuel has been bumped by Jesus; an epithet being probably
prefixed to the last name. These names of course were given in
monkish times,--Trinity by Henry VIII., but all the colleges
except one were founded before the reign of James I. ... The
seventeen colleges ... are distinct corporations. Their
foundations, resources, buildings, governing authorities and
students, are entirely separate from each other. Nor has any
one college the least control in any other. The plan, however,
is much the same in all. The presiding authority is in most
cases called the Master, or speaking more generally, the Head;
while the net proceeds of all the college funds--for the vast
wealth supposed to belong to the University really is in the
hands of the separate colleges--are distributed among certain
of the graduates, called Fellows, who with the Head constitute
the corporation. These corporations give board and lodging on
various terms to such students as choose to enter the college
and comply with its rules, in order to receive its assistance
in obtaining the honors of the University; and each college
offers its own peculiar inducements to students. ... The whole
body of the colleges, taken together, constitutes the
University. All those who after residing seven years at some
college, have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or a higher
one, and keep their name on the college lists by a small
payment, vote at the University elections for members of
Parliament and all other officers, and manage its affairs. ...
The colleges, at certain intervals; present such students as
comply with their conditions to University authorities for
matriculation, for certain examinations, and for the reception
of degrees; and until one receives the degree of Master of
Arts, he must remain a member of some college, not necessarily
one and the same, to hold any University privileges. After
this stage, he may, under certain conditions, break up all his
college connections, and yet remain in the University."
W. Everett, On the Cam., lecture 1.
{702}
EDUCATION:
Spain and Portugal.
"Salamanca was founded in the 13th-century, and received its
statutes in the year 1422, out of which was developed the
following constitution. The rector, with eight 'consiliarii,'
all students, who could appoint their successors, administered
the university. The doctors render the oath of obedience to
the rector. The 'domscholaster' is the proper judge of the
school; but he swears obedience to the rector. A bachelor of
law must have studied six years, and after five years more he
could become licentiate. In filling a paid teachership, the
doctor was chosen next in age of those holding the diploma,
unless a great majority of the scholars objected, in which
case the rector and council decided. This liberal constitution
for the scholars is in harmony with the code of Alphonzo X.,
soon after 1250, in which the liberty of instruction was made
a general principle of law. This constitution continued in
Salamanca into the 17th century, for Retes speaks of a
disputation which the rector held at that time under his
presidency. Alcala university was established by cardinal
Ximenes, in 1510, for the promotion of the study of theology
and philosophy, for which reason it contained a faculty of
canon, but not of civil law. The center of the university was
the college of St. Ildefons, consisting of thirty-three
prebendaries, who could be teachers or scholars, since for
admission were required only poverty, the age of twenty, and
the completion of the course of the preparatory colleges.
These thirty-three members elected annually a rector and three
councilors, who controlled the entire university. Salaried
teachers were elected, not by the rector and council alone,
but by all the students. It had wide reputation. When visited
by Francis I., while a prisoner of Spain, he was welcomed by
11,000 students. The Coimbra university, in Portugal, received
statutes in 1309, from king Dionysius, with a constitution
similar to those just mentioned."
F. C. Savigny, The Universities of the Middle Ages
(Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 22, page 324).
EDUCATION:
Renaissance.
"Modern education begins with the Renaissance. The educational
methods that we then begin to discern will doubtless not be
developed and perfected till a later period; the new doctrines
will pass into practice only gradually, and with the general
progress of the times. But from the sixteenth century
education is in possession of its essential principles. ...
The men of the sixteenth century having renewed with classical
antiquity an intercourse that had been too long interrupted,
it was natural that they should propose to the young the study
of the Greeks and the Romans. What is called secondary
instruction really dates from the sixteenth century. The crude
works of the Middle Age are succeeded by the elegant
compositions of Athens and Rome, henceforth made accessible to
all through the art of printing; and, with the reading of the
ancient authors, there reappear through the fruitful effect of
imitation, their qualities of correctness in thought, of
literary taste, and of elegance in form. In France, as in
Italy, the national tongues, moulded, and, as it were,
consecrated by writers of genius, become the instruments of an
intellectual propaganda. Artistic taste, revived by the rich
products of a race of incomparable artists, gives an extension
to the horizon of life, and creates a new class of emotions.
Finally, the Protestant Reform develops individual thought and
free inquiry, and at the same time, by its success, it imposes
still greater efforts on the Catholic Church. This is not
saying that everything is faultless in the educational efforts
of the sixteenth century. First, as is natural for innovators,
the thought of the teachers of this period is marked by
enthusiasm rather than by precision. They are more zealous in
pointing out the end to be attained, than exact in determining
the means to be employed. Besides, some of them are content to
emancipate the mind, but forget to give it proper direction.
Finally, others make a wrong use of the ancients; they are too
much preoccupied with the form and the purity of language;
they fall into Ciceromania, and it is not their fault if a new
superstition, that of rhetoric, does not succeed the old
superstition, that of the Syllogism."
G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy,
chapter 5 (section 92-93).
EDUCATION:
Rabelais' Gargantua.
Rabelais' description of the imaginary education of Gargantua
gives us the educational ideas of a man of genius in the 16th
century: "Gargantua," he writes, "awaked, then, about four
o'clock in the morning. Whilst they were rubbing him, there
was read unto him some chapter of the Holy Scripture aloud and
clearly, with a pronunciation fit for the matter, and hereunto
was appointed a young page born in Basché, named Anagnostes.
According to the purpose and argument of that lesson, he
oftentimes gave himself to revere, adore, pray, and send up
his supplications to that good God whose word did show His
majesty and marvellous judgments. Then his master repeated
what had been read, expounding unto him the most obscure and
difficult points. They then considered the face of the sky, if
it was such as they had observed it the night before, and into
what signs the sun was entering, as also the moon for that
day. This done, he was appareled, combed, curled, trimmed and
perfumed, during which time they repeated to him the lessons
of the day before. He himself said them by heart, and upon
them grounded practical cases concerning the estate of man,
which he would prosecute sometimes two or three hours, but
ordinarily they ceased as soon as he was fully clothed. Then
for three good hours there was reading. This done, they went
forth, still conferring of the substance of the reading, and
disported themselves at ball, tennis, or the 'pile trigone,'
gallantly exercising their bodies, as before they had done
their minds. All their play was but in liberty, for they left
off when they pleased, and that was commonly when they did
sweat, or were otherwise weary. Then were they very well dried
and rubbed, shifted their shirts, and walking soberly, went to
see if dinner was ready. Whilst they stayed for that, they did
clearly and eloquently recite some sentences that they had
retained of the lecture. In the mean time Master Appetite
came, and then very orderly sat they down at table. At the
beginning of the meal there was read some pleasant history of
ancient prowess, until he had taken his wine. Then, if they
thought good, they continued reading, or began to discourse
merrily together; speaking first of the virtue, propriety,
efficacy, and nature of all that was served in at that table;
of bread, of wine, of water, of salt, of flesh, fish, fruits,
herbs, roots, and of their dressing. By means whereof, he
learned in a little time all the passages that on these
subjects are to be found in Pliny, Athenæus, Dioscorides,
Julius, Pollux, Galen, Porphyrius, Oppian, Polybius,
Heliodorus, Aristotle, Œlian, and others.
{703}
Whilst they talked of these things, many times, to be the more
certain, they caused the very books to be brought to the
table, and so well and perfectly did he in his memory retain
the things above said, that in that time there was not a
physician that knew half so much as he did. Afterwards they
conferred of the lessons read in the morning, and ending their
repast with some conserve of quince, he washed his hands and
eyes with fair fresh water, and gave thanks unto God in some
fine canticle, made in praise of the divine bounty and
munificence. This done, they brought in cards, not to play,
but to learn a thousand pretty tricks and new inventions,
which were all grounded upon arithmetic. By this means he fell
in love with that numerical science, and every day after
dinner and supper he passed his time in it as pleasantly as he
was wont to do at cards and dice. ... After this they
recreated themselves with singing musically, in four or five
parts, or upon a set theme, as it best pleased them. In matter
of musical instruments, he learned to play the lute, the
spinet, the harp, the German flute, the flute with nine holes,
the violin, and the sackbut. This hour thus spent, he betook
himself to his principal study for three hours together, or
more, as well to repeat his matutinal lectures as to proceed
in the book wherein he was, as also to write handsomely, to
draw and form the antique and Roman letters. This being done,
they went out of their house, and with them a young gentleman
of Touraine, named Gymnast, who taught the art of riding.
Changing then his clothes, he mounted on any kind of horse,
which he made to bound in the air, to jump the ditch, to leap
the palisade, and to turn short in a ring both to the right
and left hand. ... The time being thus bestowed, and himself
rubbed, cleansed, and refreshed with other clothes, they
returned fair and softly; and passing through certain meadows,
or other grassy places, beheld the trees and plants: comparing
them with what is written of them in the books of the
ancients, such as Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Marinus, Pliny,
Nicander, Macer, and Galen, and carried home to the house
great handfuls of them, whereof a young page called Rhizotomos
had charge--together with hoes, picks, spuds, pruning-knives,
and other instruments requisite for herborising. Being come to
their lodging, whilst supper was making ready, they repeated
certain passages of that which had been read, and then sat
down at table. ... During that repast was continued the lesson
read at dinner as long as they thought good: the rest was
spent in good discourse, learned and profitable. After that
they had given thanks, they set themselves to sing musically,
and play upon harmonious instruments, or at those pretty
sports made with cards, dice or cups,--thus made merry till it
was time to go to bed; and sometimes they would go make visits
unto learned men, or to such as had been travellers in strange
countries. At full night they went into the most open place of
the house to see the face of the sky, and there beheld the
comets, if any were, as likewise the figures, situations,
aspects, oppositions, and conjunctions of the stars. Then with
his master did he briefly recapitulate, after the manner of
the Pythagoreans, that which he had read, seen, learned, done,
and understood in the whole course of that day. Then they
prayed unto God the Creator, falling down before Him, and
strengthening their faith towards Him, and glorifying Him for
His boundless bounty; and, giving thanks unto Him for the time
that was past, they recommended themselves to His divine
clemency for the future. Which being done, they entered upon
their repose."
W. Besant, Readings in Rabelais, pages 20-29.
EDUCATION:
Germany.
"The schools of France and Italy owed little to the great
modern movement of the Renaissance. In both these countries
that movement operated, in both it produced mighty results;
but of the official establishments for instruction it did not
get hold. In Italy the mediæval routine in those
establishments at first opposed a passive resistance to it;
presently came the Catholic reaction, and sedulously shut it
out from them. In France the Renaissance did not become a
power in the State, and the routine of the schools sufficed to
exclude the new influence till it took for itself other
channels than the schools. But in Germany the Renaissance
became a power in the State; allied with the Reformation,
where the Reformation triumphed in German countries the
Renaissance triumphed with it, and entered with it, into the
public schools. Melancthon and Erasmus were not merely enemies
and subverters of the dominion of the Church of Rome, they
were eminent humanists; and with the great but single
exception of Luther, the chief German reformers were all of
them distinguished friends of the new classical learning, as
well as of Protestantism. The Romish party was in German
countries the ignorant party also, the party untouched by the
humanities and by culture. Perhaps one reason why in England
our schools have not had the life and growth of the schools of
Germany and Holland is to be found in the separation, with us,
of the power of the Reformation and the power of the
Renaissance. With us, too, the Reformation triumphed and got
possession of our schools; but our leading reformers were not
at the same time, like those of Germany, the nation's leading
spirits in intellect and culture. In Germany the best spirits
of the nation were then the reformers; in England our best
spirits,--Shakspeare, Bacon, Spenser,--were men of the
Renaissance, not men of the Reformation, and our reformers
were men of the second order. The Reformation, therefore,
getting hold of the schools in England was a very different
force, a force far inferior in light, resources, and
prospects, to the Reformation getting hold of the schools in
Germany. But in Germany, nevertheless, as Protestant orthodoxy
grew petrified like Catholic orthodoxy, and as, in
consequence, Protestantism flagged and lost the powerful
impulse with which it started, the school flagged also, and in
the middle of the last century the classical teaching of
Germany, in spite of a few honourable names like Gesner's,
Ernesti's, and Heyne's, seems to have lost all the spirit and
power of the 16th century humanists, to have been sinking into
a mere church appendage, and fast becoming torpid. A
theological student, making his livelihood by teaching till he
could get appointed to a parish, was the usual school-master.
'The schools will never be better,' said their great
renovator, Friedrich August Wolf, the well-known critic of
Homer, 'so long as the school-masters are theologians by
profession.
{704}
A theological course in a university, with its smattering of
classics, is about as good a preparation for a classical
master as a course of feudal law would be.' Wolf's coming to
Halle in 1783, invited by Von Zedlitz, the minister for public
worship under Frederick the Great, a sovereign whose civil
projects and labours were not less active and remarkable than
his military, marks an era from which the classical schools of
Germany, reviving the dormant spark planted in them by the
Renaissance, awoke to a new life."
M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on
the Continent, chapter 14.
It is surprising to learn "how much was left untaught, in the
sixteenth century, in the schools. Geography and history were
entirely omitted in every scheme of instruction, mathematics
played but a subordinate part, while not a thought was
bestowed either upon natural philosophy or natural history.
Every moment and every effort were given to the classical
languages, chiefly to the Latin. But we should be overhasty,
should we conclude, without further inquiry, that these
branches, thus neglected in the schools, were therefore every
where untaught. Perhaps they were reserved for the university
alone, and there, too, for the professors of the philosophical
faculty, as is the case even at the present day with natural
philosophy and natural history; nay, logic, which was a
regular school study in the sixteenth century, is, in our day,
widely cultivated at the university. We must, therefore, in
order to form a just judgment upon the range of subjects
taught in the sixteenth century, as well as upon the methods
of instruction, first cast a glance at the state of the
universities of that period, especially in the philosophical
faculties. A prominent source of information on this point is
to be found in the statutes of the University of Wittenberg,
revised by Melancthon, in the year 1545. The theological
faculty appears, by these statutes, to have consisted of four
professors, who read lectures on the Old and New
Testaments,--chiefly on the Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah, the
Gospel of John, and the Epistle to the Romans. They also
taught dogmatics, commenting upon the Nicene creed and
Augustine's book, 'De spiritu et litera.' The Wittenberg
lecture schedule for the year 1561, is to the same effect;
only we have here, besides exegesis and dogmatics, catechetics
likewise. According to the statutes, the philosophical faculty
was composed of ten professors. The first was to read upon
logic and rhetoric; the second, upon physics, and the second
book of Pliny's natural history; the third, upon arithmetic
and the 'Sphere' of John de Sacro Busto; the fourth, upon
Euclid, the 'Theoriæ Planetarum' of Burbach, and Ptolemy's'
Almagest'; the fifth and sixth, upon the Latin poets and
Cicero; the seventh, who was the 'Pedagogus,' explained to the
younger class, Latin Grammar, Linacer 'de emendata structura
Latini sermonis,' Terence, and some of Plautus; the eighth,
who was the 'Physicus,' explained Aristotle's 'Physics and
Dioscorides'; the ninth gave instruction in Hebrew; and the
tenth reviewed the Greek Grammar, read lectures on Greek
Classics at intervals, also on one of St. Paul's Epistles,
and, at the same time, on ethics. ... Thus the philosophical
faculty appears to have been the most fully represented at
Wittenberg, as it included ten professors, while the
theological had but four, the medical but three. ... We have a
... criterion by which to judge of the limited nature of the
studies of that period, as compared with the wide field which
they cover at the present day, in the then almost total lack
of academical apparatus and equipments. The only exception was
to be found in the case of libraries; but, how meager and
insufficient all collections of books must have been at that
time, when books were few in number and very costly, will
appear from the fund, for example, which was assigned to the
Wittenberg library; it yielded annually but one hundred
gulden, (about $63,) with which, 'for the profit of the
university and chiefly of the poorer students therein, the
library may be adorned and enriched with books in all the
faculties and in every art, as well in the Hebrew and Greek
tongues.' Of other apparatus, such as collections in natural
history, anatomical museums, botanical gardens, and the like,
we find no mention; and the less, inasmuch as there was no
need of them in elucidation of such lectures as the professors
ordinarily gave. When Paul Eber, the theologian, read lectures
upon anatomy, he made no use of dissection."
K. von Raumer, Universities in the Sixteenth Century (Barnard's
American Journal of Education, volume 5, pages 535-540).
EDUCATION:
Luther and the Schools.
"Luther ... felt that, to strengthen the Reformation, it was
requisite to work on the young, to improve the schools, and to
propagate throughout Christendom the knowledge necessary for a
profound study of the holy Scriptures. This, accordingly, was
one of the objects of his life. He saw it in particular at the
period which we have reached, and wrote to the councillors of
all the cities of Germany, calling upon them to found
Christian schools. 'Dear sirs,' said he, 'we annually expend
so much money on arquebuses, roads, and dikes; why should we
not spend a little to give one or two schoolmasters to our
poor children? God stands at the door, and knocks; blessed are
we if we open to him. Now the word of God abounds. O my dear
Germans, buy, buy, while the market is open before your
houses. ... Busy yourselves with the children,' continues
Luther, still addressing the magistrates; 'for many parents
are like ostriches; they are hardened towards their little
ones, and satisfied with having laid the egg, they care
nothing for it afterwards. The prosperity of a city does not
consist merely in heaping up great treasures, in building
strong walls, in erecting splendid mansions, in possessing
glittering arms. If madmen fall upon it, its ruin will only be
the greater. The true wealth of a city, its safety, and its
strength, is to have many learned, serious, worthy,
well-educated citizens. And whom must we blame because there
are so few at present, except you magistrates, who have
allowed our youth to grow up like trees in a forest?' Luther
particularly insisted on the necessity of studying literature
and languages: 'What use is there, it may be asked, in
learning Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? We can read the Bible very
well in German. Without languages,' replies he, 'we could not
have received the gospel. ... Languages are the scabbard that
contains the sword of the Spirit; they are the casket that
guards the jewels; they are the vessel that holds the wine;
and as the gospel says, they are the baskets in which the
loaves and fishes are kept to feed the multitude. If we
neglect the languages, we shall not only eventually lose the
gospel, but be unable to speak or write in Latin or in German.
{705}
No sooner did men cease to cultivate them than Christendom
declined, even until it fell under the power of the pope. But
now that languages are again honored, they shed such light
that all the world is astonished, and everyone is forced to
acknowledge that our gospel is almost as pure as that of the
apostles themselves. In former times the holy fathers were
frequently mistaken, because they were ignorant of languages.
... If the languages had not made me positive as to the
meaning of the word, I might have been a pious monk, and
quietly preached the truth in the obscurity of the cloister;
but I should have left the pope, the sophists, and their
antichristian empire still unshaken."
J. H. Merle d' Aubigné, History of the Reformation of
the 16th Century, book 10, chapter 0 (volume 3).
Luther, in his appeal to the municipal magistrates of Germany,
calls for the organization of common schools to be supported
at public cost. "Finally, he gives his thought to the means of
recruiting the teaching service. 'Since the greatest evil in
every place is the lack of teachers, we must not wait till
they come forward of themselves; we must take the trouble to
educate them and prepare them.' To this end Luther keeps the
best of the pupils, boys and girls, for a longer time in
school; gives them special instructors, and opens libraries
for their use. In his thought he never distinguishes women
teachers from men teachers; he wants schools for girls as well
as for boys. Only, not to burden parents and divert children
from their daily labor, he requires but little time for school
duties. ... 'My opinion is [he says] that we must send the
boys to school one or two hours a day, and have them learn a
trade at home for the rest of the time. It is desirable that
these two occupations march side by side.' ... Luther gives
the first place to the teaching of religion: 'Is it not
reasonable that every Christian should know the Gospel at the
age of nine or ten?' Then come the languages, not, as might be
hoped, the mother tongue, but the learned languages, Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. Luther had not yet been sufficiently rid of
the old spirit to comprehend that the language of the people
ought to be the basis of universal instruction. He left to
Comenius the glory of making the final separation of the
primary school from the Latin school. ... Physical exercises
are not forgotten in Luther's pedagogical regulations. But he
attaches an especial importance to singing. 'Unless a
school-master know how to sing, I think him of no account.'
'Music,' he says again, 'is a half discipline which makes men
more indulgent and more mild.' At the same time that he
extends the programme of studies, Luther introduces a new
spirit into methods. He wishes more liberty and more joy in
the school. 'Solomon,' he says, 'is a truly royal
schoolmaster. He does not, like the monks, forbid the young to
go into the world and be happy. Even as Anselm said: "A young
man turned aside from the world is like a young tree made to
grow in a vase." The monks have imprisoned young men like
birds in their cage. It is dangerous to isolate the young.'
... Do not let ourselves imagine, however, that Luther at once
exercised a decisive influence on the current education of his
day. A few schools were founded, called writing schools; but
the Thirty Years' War, and other events, interrupted the
movement of which Luther has the honor of having been the
originator. ... In the first half of the seventeenth century,
Ratich, a German, and Comenius, a Slave, were, with very
different degrees of merit, the heirs of the educational
thought of Luther. With something of the charlatan and the
demagogue, Ratich devoted his life to propagating a novel art
of teaching, which be called didactics, and to which he
attributed marvels. He pretended, by his method of languages,
to teach Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in six months. But
nevertheless, out of many strange performances and lofty
promises, there issue some thoughts of practical value. The
first merit of Ratich was to give the mother tongue, the
German language, the precedence over the ancient languages."
G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy,
chapter 6 (section 130-134).
EDUCATION:
Netherlands.
"When learning began to revive after the long sleep of the
Middle Ages, Italy experienced the first impulse. Next came
Germany and the contiguous provinces of the Low Countries. The
force of the movement in these regions is shown by an event of
great importance, not always noticed by historians. In 1400,
there was established at Deventer, in the northeastern
province of the Netherlands, an association or brotherhood,
usually called Brethren of the Life in Common [see BRETHREN OF
THE COMMON LOT]. In their strict lives, partial community of
goods, industry in manual labor, fervent devotion, and
tendency to mysticism, they bore some resemblance to the
modern Moravians. But they were strikingly distinguished from
the members of this sect by their earnest cultivation of
knowledge, which was encouraged among themselves and promoted
among others by schools, both for primary and advanced
education. In 1430, the Brethren had established forty-five
branches, and by 1460 more than thrice that number. They were
scattered through different parts of Germany and the Low
Countries, each with its school subordinate to the head
college at Deventer. It was in these schools, in the middle of
the fifteenth century, that a few Germans and Netherlanders
were, as Hallam says, roused to acquire that extensive
knowledge of the ancient languages which Italy as yet
exclusively possessed. Their names should never be omitted in
any remembrance of the revival of letters; for great was their
influence upon subsequent times. Chief among these men were
Wessels, of Groningen, 'one of those who contributed most
steadily to the purification of religion'; Hegius of Deventer,
under whom Erasmus obtained his early education, and who
probably was the first man to print Greek north of the Alps;
Dringeberg, who founded a good school in Alsace; and Longius,
who presided over one at Munster. Thanks to the influence of
these pioneers in learning, education had made great progress
among the Netherlanders by the middle of the sixteenth
century. ... We have the testimony of the Italian Guicciardini
to the fact that before the outbreak of the war with Spain
even the peasants in Holland could read and write well. As the
war went on, the people showed their determination that in
this matter there should be no retrogression. In the first
Synod of Dort, held in 1574, the clergy expressed their
opinion upon the subject by passing a resolution or ordinance
which, among other things, directed 'the servants of the
Church' to obtain from the magistrates in every locality a
permission for the appointment of schoolmasters, and an order
for their compensation as in the past.
{706}
Before many years had elapsed the civil authorities began to
establish a general school system for the country. In 1582,
the Estates of Friesland decreed that the inhabitants of towns
and villages should, within the space of six weeks, provide
good and able Reformed schoolmasters, and those who neglected
so to do would be compelled to accept the instructors
appointed for them. This seems to have been the beginning of
the supervision of education by the State, a system which soon
spread over the whole republic. In these schools, however,
although they were fostered by the State, the teachers seem,
in the main, to have been paid by their pupils. But as years
went on, a change came about in this part of the system. It
probably was aided by the noteworthy letter which John of
Nassau, the oldest brother of William the Silent, the noble
veteran who lived until 1606, wrote to his son Lewis William,
Stadtholder of Friesland. In this letter, which is worthy of a
place on the walls of every schoolhouse in America, the
gallant young stadt-holder is instructed to urge on the
States-General 'that they, according to the example of the
pope and Jesuits, should establish free schools, where
children of quality as well as of poor families, for a very
small sum, could be well and christianly educated and brought
up. This would be the greatest and most useful work, and the
highest service that you could ever accomplish for God and
Christianity, and especially for the Netherlands themselves.
... In summa, one may jeer at this as popish trickery, and
undervalue it as one will: there still remains in the work an
inexpressible benefit. Soldiers and patriots thus educated,
with a true knowledge of God and a Christian conscience, item,
churches and schools, good libraries, books, and
printing-presses, are better than all armies, arsenals,
armories, munitions, alliances, and treaties that can be had
or imagined in the world.' Such were the words in which the
Patriarch of the Nassaus urged upon his countrymen a
common-school system. In 1609, when the Pilgrim Fathers took
up their residence in Leyden, the school had become the common
property of the people, and was paid for among other municipal
expenses. It was a land of schools supported by the State--a
land, according to Motley, 'where every child went to school,
where almost every individual inhabitant could write and read,
where even the middle classes were proficient in mathematics
and the classics, and could speak two or more modern
languages.' Does any reader now ask whence the settlers of
Plymouth, who came directly from Holland, and the other
settlers of New England whose Puritan brethren were to be
found in thousands throughout the Dutch Republic, derived
their ideas of schools first directed, and then supported by
the State."
EDUCATION:
Leyden University.
To commemorate the deliverance of Leyden from the Spanish
siege in 1574 (see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574), "and as a
reward for the heroism of the citizens, the Prince of Orange,
with the consent of the Estates of the province, founded the
University of Leyden. Still, the figment of allegiance
remained; the people were only fighting for their
constitutional rights, and so were doing their duty to the
sovereign. Hence the charter of the university ran in the name
of Philip, who was credited with its foundation, as a reward
to his subjects for their rebellion against his evil
counsellors and servants, 'especially in consideration of the
differences of religion, and the great burdens and hardships
borne by the citizens of our city of Leyden during the war
with such faithfulness.' Motley calls this 'ponderous irony,'
but the Hollanders were able lawyers and intended to build on
a legal basis. This event marks an epoch in the intellectual
history of Holland and of the world. ... The new university
was opened in 1575, and from the outset took the highest rank.
Speaking, a few years ago, of its famous senate chamber,
Niebuhr called it 'the most memorable room of Europe in the
history of learning.' The first curator was John Van der Does,
who had been military commandant of the city during the siege.
He was of a distinguished family, but was still more
distinguished for his learning, his poetical genius, and his
valor. Endowed with ample funds, the university largely owed
its marked pre-eminence to the intelligent foresight and wise
munificence of its curators. They sought out and obtained the
most distinguished scholars of all nations, and to this end
spared neither pains nor expense. Diplomatic negotiation and
even princely mediation were often called in for the
acquisition of a professor. Hence it was said that it
surpassed all the universities of Europe in the number of its
scholars of renown. These scholars were treated with princely
honors. ... The 'mechanicals' of Holland, as Elizabeth called
them, may not have paid the accustomed worship to rank, but to
genius and learning they were always willing to do homage.
Space would fail for even a brief account of the great men,
foreign and native, who illuminated Leyden with their
presence. ... But it was not alone in scholarship and in
scientific research that the University of Leyden gave an
impetus to modern thought. Theological disputes were developed
there at times, little tempests which threatened destruction
to the institution, but they were of short duration. The right
of conscience was always respected, and in the main the right
of full and public discussion. ... When it was settled that
dissenters could not be educated in the English universities,
they flocked to Leyden in great numbers, making that city,
next to Edinburgh, their chief resort. Eleven years after the
opening of the University of Leyden, the Estates of democratic
Friesland, amid the din of war, founded the University of
Franeker, an institution which was to become famous as the
home of Arminius. ... Both of these universities were
perpetually endowed with the proceeds of the ecclesiastical
property which had been confiscated during the progress of the
war."
D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England,
and America, chapter 2, 20, and 3.
EDUCATION:
England.
"In contemplating the events of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, in their influence on English civilisation, we are
reminded once more of the futility of certain modern
aspirations. No amount of University Commissions, nor of
well-meant reforms, will change the nature of Englishmen. It
is impossible, by distributions of University prizes and
professorships, to attract into the career of letters that
proportion of industry and ingenuity which, in Germany for
example, is devoted to the scholastic life.
{707}
Politics, trade, law, sport, religion, will claim their own in
England, just as they did at the Revival of Letters. The
illustrious century which Italy employed in unburying,
appropriating, and enjoying the treasures of Greek literature
and art, our fathers gave, in England, to dynastic and
constitutional squabbles, and to religious broils. The
Renaissance in England, and chiefly in Oxford, was like a
bitter and changeful spring. There was an hour of genial
warmth, there breathed a wind from the south, in the lifetime
of Chaucer; then came frosts and storms; again the brief
sunshine of court favour shone on literature for a while, when
Henry VIII. encouraged study, and Wolsey and Fox founded
Christ Church and Corpus Christi College, once more the bad
days of religious strife returned, and the promise of learning
was destroyed. Thus the chief result of the awakening thought
of the fourteenth century in England was not a lively delight
in literature, but the appearance of the Lollards. The
intensely practical genius of our race turned, not to letters,
but to questions about the soul and its future, about property
and its distribution. The Lollards were put down in Oxford;
'the tares were weeded out' by the House of Lancaster, and in
the process the germs of free thought, of originality, and of
a rational education, were destroyed. 'Wyclevism did domineer
among us,' says Wood; and, in fact, the intellect of the
University was absorbed, like the intellect of France during
the heat of the Jansenist controversy, in defending or
assailing '267 damned conclusions,' drawn from the books of
Wyclife. The University 'lost many of her children through the
profession of Wyclevism.'"
A. Lang, Oxford, chapter 3.
EDUCATION:
Colet and St. Paul's School.
Dr. John Colet, appointed Dean of St. Paul's in 1505,
"resolved, whilst living and in health, to devote his
patrimony to the foundation of a school in St. Paul's
Churchyard, wherein 153 children, without any restriction as
to nation or country, who could already read and write, and
were of 'good parts and capacities,' should receive a sound
Christian education. The 'Latin adulterate, which ignorant
blind fools brought into this world,' poisoning thereby 'the
old Latin speech, and the very Roman tongue used in the time
of Tully and Sallust, and Virgil and Terence, and learned by
St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine,'--all that
'abusion which the later blind world brought in, and which may
rather be called Blotterature than Literature,'--should be
'utterly abanished and excluded' out of this school. The
children should be taught good literature, both Latin and
Greek, 'such authors that have with wisdom joined pure chaste
eloquence'--'specially Christian authors who wrote their
wisdom in clean and chaste Latin, whether in prose or verse;
for,' said Colet, 'my intent is by this school specially to
increase knowledge, and worshipping of God and Our Lord Jesus
Christ, and good Christian life and manners in the children.'
... The building consisted of one large room, divided into an
upper and lower school by a curtain, which could be drawn at
pleasure; and the charge of the two schools devolved upon a
high-master and a sub-master respectively. The forms were
arranged so as each to seat sixteen boys, and were provided
each with a raised desk, at which the head-boy sat as
president. The building also embraced an entrance-porch and a
little chapel for divine service. Dwelling-houses were
erected, adjoining the school, for the residence of the two
masters; and for their support, Colet obtained, in the spring
of 1510, a royal license to transfer to the Wardens and Guild
of Mercers in London, real property to the value of £53 per
annum (equivalent to at least £530 of present money). Of this
the head-master was to receive as his salary £35 (say £350)
and the under-master £18 (say £180) per annum. Three or four
years after, Colet made provision for a chaplain to conduct
divine service in the chapel, and to instruct the children in
the Catechism, the Articles of the faith, and the Ten
Commandments,--in English; and ultimately, before his death,
he appears to have increased the amount of the whole endowment
to £122 (say £1,200) per annum. So that it, may be considered,
roughly, that the whole endowment, including the buildings,
cannot have represented a less sum than £30,000 or £40,000 of
present money. And if Colet thus sacrificed so much of his
private fortune to secure a liberal (and it must be conceded
his was a liberal) provision for the remuneration of the
masters who should educate his 153 boys, he must surely have
had deeply at heart the welfare of the boys themselves. And,
in truth, it was so. Colet was like a father to his
schoolboys. ... It was not to be expected that he should find
the school-books of the old grammarians in any way adapted to
his purpose. So at once he set his learned friends to work to
provide him with new ones. The first thing wanted was a Latin
Grammar for beginners. Linacre undertook to provide this want,
and wrote with great pains and labour, a work in six books,
which afterwards came into general use. But when Colet saw it,
at the risk of displeasing his friend, he put it altogether
aside. It was too long and too learned for his 'little
beginners.' So he condensed within the compass of a few pages
two little treatises, an 'Accidence' and a 'Syntax,' in the
preface to the first of which occur the gentle words quoted
above. These little books, after receiving additions from the
hands of Erasmus, Lilly, and others, finally became generally
adopted and known as Lilly's Grammar. This rejection of his
Grammar seems to have been a sore point with Linacre, but
Erasmus told Colet not to be too much concerned about it. ...
Erasmus, in the same letter in which he spoke of Linacre's
rejected Grammar ... put on paper his notions of what a
schoolmaster ought to be, and the best method of teaching
boys, which he fancied Colet might not altogether approve, as
he was wont somewhat more to despise rhetoric than Erasmus
did. He stated his opinion that--'In order that the teacher
might be thoroughly up to his work, he should not merely be a
master of one particular branch of study. He should himself
have travelled through the whole circle of knowledge. In
philosophy he should have studied Plato and Aristotle,
Theophrastus and Plotinus; in Theology the Sacred Scriptures,
and after them Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil among the Greek
fathers, and Ambrose and Jerome among the Latin fathers; among
the poets, Homer and Ovid; in geography, which is very
important in the study of history, Pomponins Mela, Ptolemy,
Pliny, Strabo. He should know what ancient names of rivers,
mountains, countries, cities, answer to the modern ones; and
the same of trees, animals, instruments, clothes, and, gems,
with regard to which it is incredible how ignorant even
educated men are.
{708}
He should take note of little facts about agriculture,
architecture, military and culinary arts, mentioned by
different authors. He should be able to trace the origin of
words, their gradual corruption in the languages of
Constantinople, Italy, Spain, and France. Nothing should be
beneath his observation which can illustrate history or the
meaning of the poets. But you will say what a load you are
putting on the back of the poor teacher! It is so; but I
burden the one to relieve the many. I want the teacher to have
traversed the whole range of knowledge, that it may spare each
of his scholars doing it. A diligent and thoroughly competent
master might give boys a fair proficiency in both Latin and
Greek, in a shorter time and with less labour than the common
run of pedagogues take to teach their babble.' On receipt of
this ... Colet wrote to Erasmus: ... '"What! I shall not
approve!" So you say! What is there of Erasmus's that I do not
approve?'"
F. Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers, chapter 6.
EDUCATION:
Ascham and "The Scholemaster."
Roger Ascham, the friend of Lady Jane Grey and the tutor of
Queen Elizabeth, was born in 1515, and died in 1568. "It was
partly with the view to the instruction of his own children,
that he commenced the 'Schole-master,' the work by which he is
most and best known, to which he did not live to set the last
hand. He communicated the design and import of the book in a
letter to Sturmius, in which he states, that not being able to
leave his sons a large fortune, he was resolved to provide
them with a preceptor, not one to be hired for a great sum of
money, but marked out at home with a homely pen. In the same
letter he gives his reasons for employing the English
language, the capabilities of which he clearly perceived and
candidly acknowledged, a high virtue for a man of that age,
who perhaps could have written Latin to his own satisfaction
much more easily than his native tongue. But though the
benefit of his own offspring might be his ultimate object, the
immediate occasion of the work was a conversation at Cecil's,
at which Sir Richard Sackville expressed great indignation at
the severities practiced at Eton and other great schools, so
that boys actually ran away for fear of merciless
flagellation. This led to the general subject of school
discipline, and the defects in the then established modes of
tuition. Ascham coinciding with the sentiments of the company,
and proceeding to explain his own views of improvement,
Sackville requested him to commit his opinions to paper and
the 'Schole-master' was the result. It was not published till
1670. ... We ... quote a few passages, which throw light upon
the author's good sense and good nature. To all violent
coercion, and extreme punishment, he was decidedly
opposed:--'I do agree,' says he, 'with all good school-masters
in all these points, to have children brought to good
perfectness in learning, to all honesty in manners; to have
all faults rightly amended, and every vice severely corrected,
but for the order and way that leadeth rightly to these
points, we somewhat differ.' 'Love is better than fear,
gentleness than beating, to bring up a child rightly in
learning.' 'I do assure you there is no such whetstone to
sharpen a good wit, and encourage a will to learning, as is
praise.'... 'The scholar is commonly beat for the making, when
the master were more worthy to be beat for the mending, or
rather marring, of the same; the master many times being as
ignorant as the child what to say properly and fitly to the
matter.' ... This will I say, that even the wisest of your
great beaters do as oft punish nature as they do correct
faults. Yea many times the better nature is the sorer
punished. For if one by quickness of wit take his lesson
readily, another by hardness of wit taketh it not so speedily;
the first is always commended, the other is commonly punished,
when a wise school-master should rather discreetly consider
the right disposition of both their natures, and not so much
weigh what either of them is able to do, as what either of
them is likely to do hereafter. For this I know, not only by
reading of books in my study, but also by experience of life
abroad in the world, that those which be commonly the wisest,
the best learned, and best men also, when they be old, were
never commonly the quickest of wit when they were young. Quick
wits commonly be apt to take, unapt to keep. Some are more
quick to enter speedily than be able to pierce far, even like
unto oversharp tools, whose edges be very soon turned.'"
H. Coleridge, Biographia Borealis, pages 328-330.
EDUCATION:
Jesuit Teaching and Schools.
"The education of youth is set forth in the Formula of
Approval granted by Paul III. in 1540," to the plans of
Ignatius Loyola for the foundation of the Society of Jesus,
"as the first duty embraced by the new Institute. ... Although
the new religious were not at once able to begin the
establishment of colleges, yet the plan of those afterwards
founded, was gradually ripening in the sagacious mind of St.
Ignatius, who looked to these institutions as calculated to
oppose the surest bulwarks against the progress of heresy. The
first regular college of the Society was that established at
Gandia in 1546, through the zeal of St. Francis Borgia, third
General of the Society; and the regulations by which it was
governed, and which were embodied in the constitutions, were
extended to all the Jesuit colleges afterwards founded. The
studies were to include theology, both positive and
scholastic, as well as grammar, poetry, rhetoric, and
philosophy. The course of philosophy was to last three years,
that of theology four; and the Professors of Philosophy were
enjoined to treat their subject in such a way as to dispose
the mind for the study of theology, instead of setting up
faith and reason in opposition to one another. The theology of
St. Thomas, and the philosophy of Aristotle, were to be
followed, except on those points where the teaching of the
latter was opposed to the Catholic faith."
A. T. Drane, Christian Schools and Scholars, page 708.
"As early as the middle of the sixteenth century ... [the
Society of Jesus] had several colleges in France, particularly
those of Billom, Mauriac, Rodez, Tournon, and Pamiers. In 1561
it secured a footing in Paris, notwithstanding the resistance
of the Parliament, of the university, and of the bishops
themselves. A hundred years later it counted nearly fourteen
thousand pupils in the province of Paris alone. The college of
Clermont, in 1651, enrolled more than two thousand young men.
The middle and higher classes assured to the colleges of the
society an ever-increasing membership.
{709}
At the end of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits could
inscribe on the roll of honor of their classes a hundred
illustrious names, among others those of Condé and Luxembourg,
Fléchier and Bossuet, Lamoignon and Séguier, Descartes,
Comeille, and Moliere. In 1710 they controlled six hundred and
twelve colleges and a large number of universities. They were
the real masters of education, and they maintained this
educational supremacy till the end of the eighteenth century.
Voltaire said of these teachers: 'The Fathers taught me
nothing but Latin and nonsense.' But from the seventeenth
century, opinions are divided, and the encomiums of Bacon and
Descartes must be offset by the severe judgment of Leibnitz.
'In the matter of education, says this great philosopher, 'the
Jesuits have remained below mediocrity.' Directly to the
contrary, Bacon had written: 'As to whatever relates to the
instruction of the young, we must consult the schools of the
Jesuits, for there can be nothing that is better done.' ... A
permanent and characteristic feature of the educational policy
of the Jesuits is, that, during the whole course of their
history, they have deliberately neglected and disdained
primary instruction. The earth is covered with their Latin
colleges; and wherever they have been able, they have put
their hands on the institutions for university education; but
in no instance have they founded a primary school. Even in
their establishment for secondary instruction, they entrust
the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their
order, and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher
classes."
G. Compayré, History of Pedagogy, pages 141-143.
See, also, JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
"The Jesuits owed their success partly to the very narrow task
which they set themselves, little beyond the teaching of Latin
style, and partly to the careful training which they gave
their students, a training which often degenerated into mere
mechanical exercise. But the mainspring of their influence was
the manner in which they worked the dangerous force of
emulation. Those pupils who were most distinguished at the end
of each month received the rank of prætor, censor, and
decurion. The class was divided into two parts, called Romans
and Carthaginians, Greeks and Trojans. The students sat
opposite each other, the master in the middle, the walls were
hung with swords, spears and shields which the contending
parties carried off in triumph as the prize of victory. These
pupils' contests wasted a great deal of time. The Jesuits
established public school festivals, at which the pupils might
be exhibited, and the parents flattered. They made their own
school books, in which the requirements of good teaching were
not so important as the religious objects of the order. They
preferred extracts to whole authors; if they could not prune
the classics to their fancy they would not read them at all.
What judgment are we to pass on the Jesuit teaching as a
whole? It deserves praise on two accounts. First, it
maintained the dignity of literature in an age which was too
liable to be influenced by considerations of practical
utility. It maintained the study of Greek in France at a
higher level than the University, and resisted the assaults of
ignorant parents on the fortress of Hellenism. Secondly, it
seriously set itself to understand the nature and character of
the individual pupil, and to suit the manner of education to
the mind that was to receive it. Whatever may have been the
motives of Jesuits in gaining the affections, and securing the
devotion of the children under their charge; whether their
desire was to develop the individuality which they probed, or
to destroy it in its germ, and plant a new nature in its
place; it must be admitted that the loving care which they
spent upon their charge was a new departure in education, and
has become a part of every reasonable system since their time.
Here our praise must end. ... They amused the mind instead of
strengthening it. They occupied in frivolities such as Latin
verses the years which they feared might otherwise be given to
reasoning and the acquisition of solid knowledge. ...
Celebrated as the Jesuit schools have been, they have owed
much more to the fashion which filled them with promising
scholars, than to their own excellence in dealing with their
material. ... They have never stood the test of modern
criticism. They have no place in a rational system of modern
education."
O. Browning, Introduction to the History
of Educational Theories, chapter 8.
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
Austria.
"The annual appropriations passed by Parliament allow the
minister of public instruction $8,307,774 for all kinds of
public educational institutions, elementary and secondary
schools, universities, technical and art schools, museums, and
philanthropic institutions. Generally, this principle is
adhered to by the state, to subsidize the highest institutions
of learning most liberally, to share the cost of maintaining
secondary schools with church and community, and to leave the
burden of maintaining elementary schools almost entirely to
the local or communal authorities. ... In the Austrian public
schools no distinctions are made with the pupils as regards
their religious confessions. The schools are open to all, and
are therefore common schools in the sense in which that term
is employed with us. In Prussia it is the policy of the
Government to separate the pupils of different religious
confessions in ... elementary, but not to separate them in
secondary schools. In Austria and Hungary, special teachers of
religion for the elementary and secondary schools are
employed; in Prussia this is done only in secondary schools,
while religion is taught by the secular teachers in elementary
schools. This is a very vital difference, and shows how much
nearer the Austrian schools have come to our ideal of a common
school."
United States Commissioner of Education,
Report, 1889-90, pages 465-466.
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
Belgium.
"The treaty of Paris, of March 30, 1814, fixed the boundaries
of the Netherlands, and united Holland and Belgium. In these
new circumstances, the system of public instruction became the
subject of much difficulty between the Calvinists of the
northern provinces and the Catholics of the southern. The
government therefore undertook itself to manage the
organization of the system of instruction in its three grades.
... William I. desired to free the Belgians from French
influence, and with this object adopted the injudicious
measure of attempting to force the Dutch language upon them.
He also endeavored to familiarize them with Protestant ideas,
and to this end determined to get the care of religious
instruction exclusively into the hands of the state. But the
clergy were energetic in asserting their rights; the boldness
of the Belgian deputies to the States-General increased daily;
and the project for a system of public and private instruction
which was laid before the second chamber on the 26th November,
1829, was very unfavorably received by the Catholics. The
government very honorably confessed its error by repealing the
obnoxious ordinances of 1825. But it was too late, and the
Belgian provinces were lost to Holland. On the 12th October,
1830, the provisory government repealed all laws restricting
the freedom of instruction, and the present system, in which
liberty of instruction and governmental aid and supervision
are recognized, commenced."
Public Instruction in Belgium (Barnard's American
Journal of Education, volume 8, pages 582-583).
{710}
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
Denmark.
"Denmark has long been noted for the excellence of her
schools. ... The perfection and extension of the system of
popular instruction date from the beginning of the eighteenth
century, when Bishop Thestrup, of Aalberg, caused 6 parish
schools to be established in Copenhagen and when King
Frederick IV. (1699-1730) had 240 school-houses built. ...
Christian VI. (17301746), ... ordained in 1739 the
establishment of common or parish schools in every town and in
every larger village. The branches of instruction were to be
religion, reading, writing, and arithmetic. No one was to be
allowed to teach unless he had shown himself qualified to the
satisfaction of the clergyman of the parish. .... Many
difficulties, however (especially the objections of the landed
proprietors, who had their own schools on their estates),
hindered the free development of the common school system, and
it was not until 1814 that a new and more favorable era was
inaugurated by the law of July 29 of that year. According to
this law the general control of the schools is in the hands of
a minister of public instruction and subordinate
superintendents for the several departments of the kingdom."
Education in Denmark
(United States Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 2), pages 40-41.
"With a population in 1890 of 2,185,157, the pupils enrolled
in city and rural schools in Denmark numbered 231,940, or
about 10 per cent. of the population receiving the foundation
of an education. In 1881 the illiterates to 100 recruits
numbered 0.36; in Sweden at that date, the per cent. was
0.39."
United States Commissioner of Education,
Report, 1889-90, page 523.
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
England: Oxford and Cambridge.
"Oxford and Cambridge, as establishments for education,
consist of two parts--of the University proper, and of the
Colleges. The former, original and essential, is founded,
controlled, and privileged by public authority, for the
advantage of the nation. The latter, accessory and contingent,
are created, regulated, and endowed by private munificence,
for the interest of certain favored individuals. Time was,
when the Colleges did not exist, and the University was there;
and were the Colleges again abolished, the University would
remain entire. The former, founded solely for education,
exists only as it accomplishes the end of its institution; the
latter, founded principally for aliment and habitation, would
still exist, were all education abandoned within their walls.
The University, as a national establishment, is necessarily
open to the lieges in general; the Colleges, as private
institutions, might universally do, as some have actually
done--close their gates upon all, except their foundation
members. The Universities and Colleges are thus neither
identical, nor vicarious of each other. If the University
ceases to perform its functions, it ceases to exist; and the
privileges accorded by the nation to the system of public
education legally organized in the University, can not,
without the consent of the nation--far less without the
consent of the academical legislature--be lawfully transferred
to the system of private education precariously organized in
the Colleges, and over which neither the State nor the
University have any control. They have, however, been
unlawfully usurped. Through the suspension of the University,
and the usurpation of its functions and privileges by the
Collegial bodies, there has arisen the second of two systems,
diametrically opposite to each other.--The one, in which the
University was paramount, is ancient and statutory; the other,
in which the Colleges have the ascendant, is recent and
illegal.--In the former, all was subservient to public
utility, and the interests of science; in the latter, all is
sacrificed to private monopoly, and to the convenience of the
teacher. ... In the original constitution of Oxford, as in
that of all the older Universities of the Parisian model, the
business of instruction was not confided to a special body of
privileged professors. The University was governed, the
University was taught, by the graduates at large. Professor,
Master, Doctor, were originally synonymous. Every graduate had
an equal right of teaching publicly in the University the
subjects competent to his faculty, and to the rank of his
degree; nay, every graduate incurred the obligation of
teaching publicly, for a certain period, the subjects of his
faculty, for such was the condition involved in the grant of
the degree itself."
Sir William Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy and
Literature, etc.: Education, chapter 4.
EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.
England: The "Great Public Schools."
What is a public school in England? "The question is one of
considerable difficulty. To some extent, however, the answer
has been furnished by the Royal Commission appointed in 1861
to inquire into the nature and application of the endowments
and revenues, and into the administration and management of
certain specified colleges and schools commonly known as the
Public Schools Commission. Nine are named in the Queen's
letter of appointment, viz., Eton, Winchester, Westminster,
the Charterhouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors', Harrow,
Rugby, and Shrewsbury. The reasons probably which suggested
this selection were, that the nine named foundations had in
the course of centuries emerged from the mass of endowed
grammar-schools, and had made for themselves a position which
justified their being placed in a distinct category, and
classed as 'public schools.' It will be seen as we proceed
that all these nine have certain features in common,
distinguishing them from the ordinary grammar-schools which
exist in almost every country town in England. Many of these
latter are now waking up to the requirements of the new time
and following the example of their more illustrious sisters.
The most notable examples of this revival are such schools as
those at Sherborne, Giggleswick, and Tunbridge Wells, which,
while remodelling themselves on the lines laid down by the
Public Schools Commissioners, are to some extent providing a
training more adapted to the means and requirements of our
middle classes in the nineteenth century than can be found at
any of the nine public schools.
{711}
But twenty years ago the movement which has since made such
astonishing progress was scarcely felt in quiet country places
like these, and the old endowments were allowed to run to
waste in a fashion which is now scarcely credible. The same
impulse which has put new life into the endowed
grammar-schools throughout England has worked even more
remarkably in another direction. The Victorian age bids fair
to rival the Elizabethan in the number and importance of the
new schools which it has founded and will hand on to the
coming generation. Marlborough, Haileybury, Uppingham,
Rossall, Clifton, Cheltenham, Radley, Malvern, and Wellington
College, are nine schools which have taken their place in the
first rank. ... In order, then, to get clear ideas on the
general question, we must keep these three classes of schools
in mind--the nine old foundations recognized in the first
instance by the Royal Commission of 1861; the old foundations
which have remained local grammar-schools until within the
last few years, but are now enlarging their bounds, conforming
more or less to the public-school system, and becoming
national institutions; and, lastly, the modern foundations
which started from the first as public schools, professing to
adapt themselves to the new circumstances and requirements of
modern English life. The public schools of England fall under
one or other of these categories. ... We may now turn to the
historic side of the question, dealing first, as is due to
their importance, with the nine schools of our first category.
The oldest, and in some respects most famous of these, is
Winchester School, or, as it was named by its founder William
of Wykeham, the College of St. Mary of Winchester, founded in
1382. Its constitution still retains much of the impress left
on it by the great Bishop of the greatest Plantagenet King,
five centuries ago. Toward the end of the fourteenth century
Oxford was already the center of English education, but from
the want of grammar-schools boys went up by hundreds untaught
in the simplest rudiments of learning, and when there lived in
private hostels or lodging-houses, in a vast throng, under no
discipline, and exposed to many hardships and temptations. In
view of this state of things, William of Wykeham founded his
grammar-school at Winchester and his college at Oxford,
binding the two together, so that the school might send up
properly trained scholars to the university, where they would
be received at New College, in a suitable academical home,
which should in its turn furnish governors and masters for the
school. ... Next in date comes the royal foundation of Eton,
or 'The College of the Blessed Mary of Eton, near Windsor.' It
was founded by Henry VI., A. D. 1446, upon the model of
Winchester, with a collegiate establishment of a provost, ten
fellows (reduced to seven in the reign of Edward IV.), seventy
scholars, and ten chaplains (now reduced to two; who are
called 'conducts'), and a head and lower master, ten lay
clerks, and twelve choristers. The provost and fellows are the
governing body, who appoint the head master. ... Around this
center the great school, numbering now a thousand boys, has
gathered, the college, however, still retaining its own
separate organization and traditions. Besides the splendid
buildings and playing-fields at Eton, the college holds real
property of the yearly value of upward of £20,000, and forty'
livings ranging from £100 to £1,200 of yearly value. ... The
school next in date stands out in sharp contrast to Winchester
and Eton. It is St. Paul's School, founded by Dean Colet. ...
Shrewsbury School, which follows next in order of seniority,
claims a royal foundation, but is in reality the true child of
the town's folk. The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed
also the seminaries attached to many of them, to the great
injury of popular education. This was specially the case in
Shropshire, so in 1551 the bailiffs, burgesses, and
inhabitants of Shrewsbury and the neighborhood petitioned
Edward VI. for a grant of some portion of the estates of the
dissolved collegiate churches for the purpose of founding a
free school. The King consented, and granted to the
petitioners the appropriated tithes of several livings and a
charter, but died before the school was organized. It was in
abeyance during Mary's reign, but opened in the fourth year of
Elizabeth, 1562, by Thomas Aston. ... We have now reached the
great group of Elizabethan schools, to which indeed Shrewsbury
may also be said to belong, as it was not opened until the
Queen had been three years on the throne. The two metropolitan
schools of Westminster and Merchant Taylors' were in fact
founded in 1560, two years before the opening of Shrewsbury.
Westminster as a royal foundation must take precedence. It is
a grammar-school attached by the Queen to the collegiate
church of St. Peter, commonly called Westminster Abbey, and
founded for the free education of forty scholars in Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew. The Queen, with characteristic thriftiness,
provided no endowment for her school, leaving the cost of
maintenance as a charge on the general revenues of the dean
and chapter, which indeed were, then as now, fully competent
to sustain the burden. ... Merchant Taylors', the other
metropolitan school founded in 1560, owes its origin to Sir
Thomas White, a member of the Court of Assistants of the
company, and founder of St. John's College, Oxford. It was
probably his promise to connect the school with his college
which induced the Company to undertake the task. ... Sir
Thomas White redeemed his promise by endowing the school with
thirty-seven fellowships at St. John's College. ... Rugby, or
the free school of Lawrence Sheriff, follows next in order,
having been founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, grocer, and
citizen of London. His 'intent' (as the document expressing
his wishes is called) declares that his lands in Rugby and
Brownsover, and his 'third of a pasture-ground in Gray's Inn
Fields, called Conduit Close,' shall be applied to maintain a
free grammar school for the children of Rugby and Brownsover,
and the places adjoining, and four poor almsmen of the same
parishes. These estates, after providing a fair schoolhouse
and residences for the master and almsmen, at first produced a
rental of only £24 13s. 4d. In due time, however, Conduit
Close became a part of central London, and Rugby School the
owner of eight acres of houses in and about the present Lamb's
Conduit Street. The income of the whole trust property amounts
now to about £6,000, of which £255 is expended on the
maintenance of the twelve almsmen. ... Harrow School was
founded in 1571, four years later than Rugby, by John Lyon, a
yeoman of the parish.
{712}
He was owner of certain small estates in and about Harrow and
Barnet, and of others at Paddington and Kilburn. All these he
devoted to public purposes, but unfortunately gave the former
for the perpetual education of the children and youth of the
parish, and the latter for the maintenance and repair of the
highways from Harrow and Edgeware to London. The present
yearly revenue of the school estates is barely over £1,000,
while that of the highway trust is nearly £4,000. But, though
the poorest in endowments, Harrow, from its nearness to
London, and consequent attractions for the classes who spend a
large portion of their year in the metropolis either in
attendance in Parliament, or for pleasure, has become the
rival of Eton as a fashionable school. ... Last on the list of
the nine schools comes the Charterhouse (the Whitefriars of
Thackeray's novels). It may be fairly classed with the
Elizabethan schools, though actually founded in 1609, after
the accession of James I. In that year a substantial yeoman,
Thomas Sutton by name, purchased from Lord Suffolk the lately
dissolved Charterhouse, by Smithfield, and obtained letters
patent empowering him to found a hospital and school on the
old site."
T. Hughes, The Public Schools of England
(North American Review, April, 1879).
EDUCATION: England
Fagging.
"In rougher days it was found, that in large schools the
stronger and larger boys reduced the smaller and weaker to the
condition of Helots. Here the authorities stepped in, and
despairing of eradicating the evil, took the power which mere
strength had won, and conferred it upon the seniors of the
school--the members, that is, of the highest form or forms. As
in those days, promotion was pretty much a matter of rotation,
everyone who remained his full time at the school, was pretty
sure to reach in time the dominant class, and the humblest fag
looked forward to the day when he would join the ranks of the
ruling aristocracy. Meantime he was no longer at the beck of
any stronger or ruder classfellow. His 'master' was in theory,
and often in practice, his best protector: he imposed upon him
very likely what may be called menial offices--made him carry
home his 'Musæ'--field for him at cricket--brush his coat; if
we are to believe school myths and traditions, black his
shoes, and even take the chill off his sheets. The boy,
how-ever, saw the son of a Howard or a Percy similarly
employed by his side, and in cheerfully submitting to an
ancient custom, he was but following out the tendencies of the
age and class to which he belonged. ... The mere abolition of
the right of fagging, vague and undefined as were the duties
attached to it, would have been a loss rather than a gain to
the oppressed as a class. It would merely have substituted for
the existing law, imperfect and anomalous as that law might
be, the licence of brute force and the dominion of boyish
truculence. ... Such was, more or less, the state of things
when he to whom English education owes so incalculable a debt,
was placed at the head of Rugby School. ... It was hoped that
he who braved the anger of his order by his pamphlet on Church
Reform--at whose bold and uncompromising language bishops
stood aghast and courtly nobles remonstrated in vain--would
make short work of ancient saws and mediæval traditions--that
a revolution in school life was at hand. And they were not
mistaken. ... What he did was to seize on the really valuable
part of the existing system--to inspire it with that new life,
and those loftier purposes, without which mere institutions,
great or small, must, sooner or later, wither away and perish.
His first step was to effect an important change in the actual
machinery of the school--one which, in itself, amounted to a
revolution. The highest form in the school was no longer open
to all whom a routine promotion might raise in course of time
to its level. Industry and talent as tested by careful
examinations (in the additional labour of which he himself
bore the heaviest burden), were the only qualifications
recognised. The new-modelled 'sixth form' were told, that the
privileges and powers which their predecessors had enjoyed for
ages were not to be wrested from them; but that they were to
be held for the common good, as the badges and instruments of
duties and responsibilities, such as anyone with less
confidence in those whom he addressed would have hesitated to
impose. They were told plainly that without their co-operation
there was no hope of keeping in check the evils inherent in a
society of boys. Tyranny, falsehood, drinking, party-spirit,
coarseness, selfishness--the evil spirits that infest
schools--these they heard Sunday after Sunday put in their
true light by a majestic voice and a manly presence, with
words, accents, and manner which would live in their memory
for years; but they were warned that, to exercise such
spirits, something more was needed than the watchfulness of
masters and the energy of their chief. They themselves must
use their large powers, entrusted to them in recognition of
the principle, or rather of the fact, that in a large society
of boys some must of necessity hold sway, to keep down, in
themselves and those about them, principles and practices
which are ever ready, like hideous weeds, to choke the growth
of all that is fair and noble in such institutions. Dr. Arnold
persevered in spite of opposition, obloquy, and
misrepresentation. ... But he firmly established his system,
and his successors, men differing in training and temperament
from himself and from each other, have agreed in cordially
sustaining it. His pupils and theirs, men in very different
walks of life, filling honourable posts at the universities
and public schools, or ruling the millions of India, or
working among the blind and toiling multitudes of our great
towns, feel daily how much of their usefulness and power they
owe to the sense of high trust and high duty which they
imbibed at school."
Our Public Schools--Their Discipline and
Instruction (Fraser's Magazine, volume 1, pages 407--409).
EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1699-1870.
The rise of Elementary Schools.
"The recognition by the English State of its paramount duty in
aiding the work of national education is scarcely more than a
generation old. The recognition of the further and far more
extensive work of supplementing by State aid, or by State
agency, all deficiencies in the supply of schools, dates only
thirteen years back [to 1870]; while the equally pressing duty
of enforcing, by a universal law, the use of the opportunities
of education thus supplied, is a matter almost of yesterday.
The State has only slowly stepped into its proper place; more
slowly in the case of England than in the case of any other of
the leading European nations. ... In 1699 the Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge was founded, and by it
various schools were established throughout the country.
{713}
In 1782 Robert Raikes established his first Sunday school, and
in a few years the Union, of which he was the founder, had
under its control schools scattered all over the country. But
the most extensive efforts made for popular education were
those of Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster towards the close of
the eighteenth century. ... They misconceived and misjudged
the extent of the work that had to be accomplished. They
became slaves to their system--that which was called the
Monitorial system ... and by elevating it to undue importance
they did much to discredit the very work in which they were
engaged. ... Amongst the Nonconformist followers of Lancaster
there arose the British and Foreign School Society; while by
those of Bell there was established, on the side representing
the Church, the National Society. The former became the
recognised agency of the Dissenters, the latter of the Church;
and through one or other of these channels State aid, when it
first began to flow, was obliged to take its course. ... In
1802 the first Sir Robert Peel passed a Bill which restricted
children's labour in factories, and required that reading,
writing, and arithmetic should be taught to them during a part
of each day. This was the beginning of the factory
legislation. ... In 1807 Mr. Whitebread introduced a Bill for
the establishment of parochial schools through the agency of
local vestries, who were empowered to draw on the rates for
the purpose. The House of Commons accepted the Bill, but it
was thrown out in the House of Lords. ... The movement for a
State recognition of education was pressed more vigorously
when the fears and troubles of European war were clearing
away. It was in 1816 that Brougham obtained his Select
Committee for Inquiring into the Education of the Poor in the
Metropolis. ... In 1820 Brougham introduced, on the basis of
his previous inquiries, an Education Bill. ... By this Bill
the issue between the contending parties in the State, which
was henceforward destined to be the chief stumbling-block in
the way of a State education, was placed on a clear and
well-defined basis. ... The Church was alarmed at anything
which seemed to trench upon what she naturally thought to be
her appointed task. The Dissenters dreaded what might add to
the impregnability of the Church's strongholds. ... When the
beginning was actually made it came ... as an almost unnoticed
proposal of the Executive. In 1832 the sum of £20,000 for
public education was placed in the estimates; it was passed by
the Committee of Supply; and the first step was taken on that
course from which the State has never since drawn back. No
legislation was necessary. ... The next great step was taken
in 1839, when the annual vote was increased from £20,000 to
£30,000, and when a special department was created to
supervise the work. Hitherto grants had been administered by
the Treasury to meet a certain amount of local exertion, and
in general reliance upon vague assurances as to maintenance of
the schools by local promoters. ... The conditions which were
soon found to be necessary as securities, either for
continuance or for efficiency, were not yet insisted upon. To
do this it was necessary to have a Department specially
devoted to this work; and the means adopted for creating such
a Department was one which had the advantage of requiring no
Act of Parliament. By an order in Council a Special Committee
of the Privy Council was established, and, in connection with
this Committee, a special staff of officers was engaged. The
same year saw the appointment of the first inspectors of
schools. It was thus that the Education Department was
constituted. The plan which the advisers of the Government in
this new attempt had most at heart was that of a Normal
Training College for teachers. ... But it was surrounded with
so much matter for dispute, gathered during a generation of
contention, that the proposal all but wrecked the Government
of Lord Melbourne. The Church objected to the scheme. ... In
the year 1844, after five years of the new administration, it
was possible to form some estimate, not only of the solid work
accomplished, but of the prospects of the immediate future.
... Between 1839 and 1844, under the action of the Committee
of Council, £170,000 of Imperial funds had been distributed to
meet £430,000 from local resources. In all, therefore, about
one million had been spent in little more than ten years. What
solid good had this accomplished? ... According to a careful
and elaborate report in the year 1845, only about one in six,
even of the children at school, was found able to read the
Scriptures with any ease. Even for these the power of reading
often left them when they tried a secular book. Of reading
with intelligence there was hardly any; and about one-half of
the children who came to school left, it was calculated,
unable to read. Only about one child in four had mastered,
even in the most mechanical way, the art of writing. As
regards arithmetic, not two per cent. of the children had
advanced as far as the rule of three. ... The teaching of the
schools was in the hands of men who had scarcely any training,
and who had often turned to the work because all other work
had turned away from them. Under them it was conducted upon
that monitorial system which was the inheritance from Dr.
Bell, the rival of Lancaster. The pupils were set to teach one
another. ... The inquiries of the Committee of Council thus
gave the death-blow, in public estimation, to the once
highly-vaunted monitorial system. But how was it to be
replaced? The model of a better state of things was found in
the Dutch schools. There a selected number of the older
pupils, who intended to enter upon the profession of teachers,
were apprenticed, when they had reached the age of thirteen,
to the teacher. ... After their apprenticeship they passed to
a Training College. ... Accordingly, a new and important start
was made by the Department on the 25th of August 1846. ... In
1851 twenty-five Training Colleges had been established; and
these had a sure supply of qualified recruits in the 6,000
pupil teachers who were by that time being trained to the
work. ... The ten years between 1842 and 1852 saw the
Parliamentary grant raised from £40,000 to £160,000 a year,
with the certainty of a still further increase as the
augmentation grants to teachers and the stipends to pupil
teachers grew in number. Nearly 3,800 schools had been built
with Parliamentary aid, providing accommodation for no less
than 540,000 children. The State had contributed towards this
more than £400,000; and a total expenditure had been incurred
in providing schools of more than £1,000,000. ... But the
system was as yet only tentative; and a mass of thorny
religious questions had to be faced before a really national
system could be established.
{714}
... All parties became convinced that the first step was to
inquire into the merits and defects of the existing system,
and on the basis of sound information to plan some method of
advance. Under this impression it was that the Commission on
Public Education, of which the Duke of Newcastle was chairman,
was appointed in 1858." The result of the Commission of 1858
was a revision of the educational Code which the Committee of
the Privy Council had formulated. The New Code proved
unsatisfactory in its working, and every year showed more
plainly the necessity of a fully organized system of national
education. "Out of the discussions there arose two societies,
which fairly expressed two different views. ... The first of
these was the Education League, started at Birmingham in 1869.
... Its basis, shortly stated, was that of a compulsory system
of school provision, by local authorities through means of
local rates; the schools so provided to be at once free and
unsectarian. ... In this programme the point which raised most
opposition was the unsectarian teaching. It was chiefly to
counteract this part of the League's objects that there was
formed the Education Union, which urged a universal system
based upon the old lines. ... By common consent the time for a
settlement was now come. Some guarantee must be taken that the
whole edifice should not crumble to pieces; that for local
agencies there should be substituted local authorities; and
that the State should be supplied with some machinery whereby
the gaps in the work might be supplied. It was in this
position of opinion that Mr. Forster, as Vice-President,
introduced his Education Bill in 1870. ... The measure passed
the House of Lords without any material alteration; and
finally became Law on the 9th of August 1870."
R. Craik, The State in its Relation to Education.
The schools to which the provisions of the Act of 1870
extends, and the regulations under which such schools are to
be conducted, are defined in the Act as follows: "Every
elementary school which is conducted in accordance with the
following regulations shall be a public elementary school
within the meaning of this Act; and every public elementary
school shall be conducted in accordance with the following
regulations (a copy of which regulations shall be
conspicuously put up in every such school); namely
(1.) It shall not be required, as a condition of any child
being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall
attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any
place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any
religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects
in the school or elsewhere, from which observance or
instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he
shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any
day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the
religious body to which his parent belongs:
(2.) The time or times during which any religious observance
is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at
any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or
at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting,
and shall be inserted in a time-table to be approved by the
Education Department, and to be kept permanently and
conspicuously affixed in every school-room; and any scholar
may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or
instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of
the school:
(3.) The school shall be open at all times to the inspection
of any of Her Majesty's inspectors, so, however, that it shall
be no part of the duties of such inspector to inquire into any
instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to
examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge or in any
religious subject or book:
(4.) The school shall be conducted in accordance with the
conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in
order to obtain an annual parliamentary grant."
J. R. Rigg, National Education, appendix A.
"The new Act retained existing inspected schools, ... it also
did away with all denominational classifications of schools
and with denominational inspection, treating all inspected
schools as equally belonging to a national system of schools
and under national inspection, the distinctions as to
inspectors and their provinces being henceforth purely
geographical. But the new Act no longer required that public
elementary schools established by voluntary agency and under
voluntary management should have in them any religious
character or element whatever, whether as belonging to a
Christian Church or denomination, or as connected with a
Christian philanthropic society, or as providing for the
reading of the Scriptures in the school. It was left open to
any party or any person to establish purely voluntary schools
if they thought fit. But, furthermore, the Act made provision
for an entirely new class of schools, to be established and
(in part) supported out of local rates, to be governed by
locally-elected School Boards, and to have just such and so
much religious instruction given in them as the governing
boards might think proper, at times preceding or following the
prescribed secular school hours, and under the protection of a
time-table Conscience Clause, as in the case of voluntary
schools, with this restriction only, that in these schools no
catechism or denominational religious formulary of any sort
was to be taught. The mode of electing members to the School
Boards was to be by what is called the cumulative vote--that
is, each elector was to have as many votes as there were
candidates, and these votes he could give all to one, or else
distribute among the candidates as he liked; and all
ratepayers were to be electors. ... The new law ... made a
clear separation, in one respect, between voluntary and Board
schools. Both were to stand equally in relation to the
National Education Department, under the Privy Council; but
the voluntary schools were to have nothing to do with local
rates or rate aid, nor Local Boards to have any control over
voluntary schools."
J. H. Rigg, National Education, chapter 10.
"To sum up ... in few words what may be set down as the chief
characteristics of our English system of Elementary Education,
I should say
(1) first, that whilst about 30 per cent. of our school
accommodation is under the control of school boards, the cost
of maintenance being borne in part by local rates as well as
by the Parliamentary grant, fully 70 per cent. is still in the
hands of voluntary school-managers, whose subscriptions take
the place of the rates levied by school boards.
(2) In case a deficiency in school accommodation is reported
in any school district, the Education Department have the
power to require that due provision shall be made for the same
within a limited time; the 'screw' to be applied to wilful
defaulters in a voluntary school district being the threat of
a board, and in a school board district the supercession of
the existing board by a new board, nominated by the
Department, and remunerated out of the local rates.
{715}
(3) Attendance is enforced everywhere by bye-laws, worked
either by the school board or by the School Attendance
Committee: and although these local authorities are often very
remiss in discharging their duties, and the magistrates not
seldom culpably lenient in dealing with cases brought before
them, there are plenty of districts in which regularity of
school attendance has been improved fully 10 per cent. in the
past two or three years. ...
(4) The present provision for teachers, and the means in
existence for keeping up the supply, are eminently
satisfactory. Besides a large but somewhat diminishing body of
apprenticed pupil teachers, there is a very considerable and
rapidly increasing number of duly qualified assistants, and at
their head a large array of certificated teachers, whose ranks
are being replenished, chiefly from the Training Colleges, at
the rate of about 2,000 a year.
(5) The whole of the work done is examined and judged every
year by inspectors and inspectors' assistants organised in
districts each superintended by a senior inspector--the total
cost of this inspection for the present year being estimated
at about £150,000."
Reverend H. Roe, The English System of Elementary
Education (International Health Exhibition, London,
1884: Conference on Education, section A).
"The result of the work of the Education Department is causing
a social revolution in England. If the character of the
teaching is too mechanical, if the chief aim of the teacher is
to earn as much money as possible for his managers, it must be
remembered that this cannot be done without at least giving
the pupil the ability to read and write. Of course the schools
are not nearly so good as the friends of true education wish.
Much remains to be done. ... Free education will shortly be an
accomplished fact; the partial absorption of the voluntary
schools by the School Boards will necessarily follow, and
further facilitate the abolition of what have been the cause
of so much evil--result examinations, and 'grant payments.'
'Write "Grant factory" on three-fourths of our schools,' said
an educator to me. ... The schools are known as
(1) Voluntary Schools, which have been built, and are partly
supported by voluntary subscriptions. These are under
denominational control.
(2) Board Schools: viz., schools built and supported by money
raised by local taxation, and controlled by elected School
Boards.
Out of 4,688,000 pupils in the elementary schools, 2,154,000
are in the schools known as Voluntary, provided by, and under
the control of the Church of England; 1,780,000 are in Board
Schools; 330,000 attend schools under the British School
Society, or other undenominational control; 248,000 are in
Roman Catholic schools; and 174,000 belong to Wesleyan
schools. The schools here spoken of correspond more nearly
than any other in England to the Public School of the United
States and Australia; but are in many respects very different,
chiefly from the fact that they are provided expressly for the
poor, and in many cases are attended by no other class."
W. C. Grasby, Teaching in Three Continents, chapter 2.
EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1891.
Attainment of Free Education.
In 1891, a bill passed Parliament which aims at making the
elementary schools of the country free from the payment of
fees. The bill as explained in the House of Commons, "proposed
to give a grant of 10s. per head to each scholar in average
attendance between five and fourteen years of age, and as
regarded such children schools would either become wholly
free, or would continue to charge a fee reduced by the amount
of the grant, according as the fee at present charged did or
did not exceed 10s. When a school had become free it would
remain free, or when a fee was charged, the fee would remain
unaltered unless a change was required for the educational
benefit of the locality; and under this arrangement he
believed that two-thirds of the elementary schools in England
and Wales would become free. There would be no standard
limitations, but the grant would be restricted to schools
where the compulsory power came in, and as to the younger
children, it was proposed that in no case should the fee
charged exceed 2d." In a speech made at Birmingham on the free
education bill, Mr. Chamberlain discussed the opposition to it
made by those who wished to destroy the denominational
schools, and who objected to their participation in the
proposed extension of public support. "To destroy
denominational schools," he said, "was now an impossibility,
and nothing was more astonishing than the progress they had
made since the Education Act of 1870. He had thought, he said,
they would die out with the establishment of Board schools,
but he had been mistaken, for in the last twenty-three years
they had doubled their accommodation, and more than doubled
their subscription list. At the present time they supplied
accommodation for two-thirds of the children of England and
Wales. That being the case, to destroy voluntary schools--to
supply their places with Board schools, as the Daily News
cheerfully suggested--would be to involve a capital
expenditure of £50,000,000, and £5,000,000 extra yearly in
rates, But whether voluntary or denominational schools were
good or bad, their continued existence had nothing to do with
the question of free education, and ought to be kept quite
distinct from it. To make schools free was not to give one
penny extra to any denominational endowment. At the present
time the fee was a tax, and if the parents did not pay fees
they were brought before the magistrates, and if they still
did not pay they might be sent to gaol. The only thing the
Government proposed to do was not to alter the tax but to
alter the incidence. The same amount would be collected; it
would be paid by the same people, but it would be collected
from the whole nation out of the general taxation." The bill
was passed by the Commons July 8, and by the Lords on the 24th
of the same month. The free education proposals of the
Government are said to have been generally accepted throughout
the country by both Board and Voluntary schools.
Annual Register, 1891, pages 128 and 97, and part 2, page 51.
{716}
EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1565-1802.
The Jesuits.
Port Royal.
The Revolution.
Napoleon.
"The Jesuits invaded the province long ruled by the University
alone. By that adroit management of men for which they have
always been eminent, and by the more liberal spirit of their
methods, they outdid in popularity their superannuated rival.
Their first school at Paris was established in 1565, and in
1762, two years before their dissolution, they had eighty-six
colleges in France. They were followed by the Port Royalists,
the Benedictines, the Oratorians. The Port Royal schools [see
PORT ROYAL], from which perhaps a powerful influence upon
education might have been looked for, restricted this
influence by limiting very closely the number of their pupils.
Meanwhile the main funds and endowments for public education
in France were in the University's hands, and its
administration of these was as ineffective as its teaching.
... The University had originally, as sources of revenue, the
Post Office and the Messageries, or Office of Public
Conveyance; it had long since been obliged to abandon the Post
Office to Government, when in 1719 it gave up to the same
authority the privilege of the Messageries, receiving in
return from the State a yearly revenue of 150,000 livres. For
this payment, moreover, it undertook the obligation of making
the instruction in all its principal colleges gratuitous. Paid
or gratuitous, however, its instruction was quite inadequate
to the wants of the time, and when the Jesuits were expelled
from France in 1764, their establishments closed, and their
services as teachers lost, the void that was left was
strikingly apparent, and public attention began to be drawn to
it. It is well known how Rousseau among writers, and Turgot
among statesmen, busied themselves with schemes of education;
but the interest in the subject must have reached the whole
body of the community, for the instructions of all three
orders of the States General in 1789 are unanimous in
demanding the reform of education, and its establishment on a
proper footing. Then came the Revolution, and the work of
reform soon went swimmingly enough, so far as the abolition of
the old schools was concerned. In 1791 the colleges were all
placed under the control of the administrative authorities; in
1792 the jurisdiction of the University was abolished; in 1793
the property of the colleges was ordered to be sold, the
proceeds to be taken by the State; in September of the same
year the suppression of all the great public schools and of
all the University faculties was pronounced. For the work of
reconstruction Condorcet's memorable plan had in 1792 been
submitted to the Committee of Public Instruction appointed by
the Legislative Assembly. This plan proposed a secondary
school for every 4,000 inhabitants; for each department, a
departmental institute, or higher school; nine lycées, schools
carrying their studies yet higher than the departmental
institute, for the whole of France; and to crown the edifice,
a National Society of Sciences and Arts, corresponding in the
main with the present institute of France. The whole expense
of national instruction was to be borne by the State, and this
expense was estimated at 29,000,000 of francs. But 1792 and
1793 were years of furious agitation, when it was easier to
destroy than to build. Condorcet perished with the Girondists,
and the reconstruction of public education did not begin till
after the fall of Robespierre. The decrees of the Convention
for establishing the Normal School, the Polytechnic, the
School of Mines, and the écoles centrales, and then Daunou's
law in 1795, bore, however, many traces of Condorcet's design.
Daunou's law established primary schools, central schools,
special schools, and at the head of all the Institute of
France, this last a memorable and enduring creation, with
which the old French Academy became incorporated. By Daunou's
law, also, freedom was given to private persons to open
schools. The new legislation had many defects. ... The
country, too, was not yet settled enough for its education to
organise itself successfully. The Normal School speedily broke
down; the central schools were established slowly and with
difficulty; in the course of the four years of the Directory
there were nominally instituted ninety·one of these schools,
but they never really worked. More was accomplished by private
schools, to which full freedom was given by the new
legislation, at the same time that an ample and open field lay
before them. They could not, however, suffice for the work,
and education was one of the matters for which Napoleon, when
he became Consul, had to provide. Foureroy's law, in 1802,
took as the basis of its school-system secondary schools,
whether established by the communes or by private individuals;
the Government undertook to aid these schools by grants for
buildings, for scholarships, and for gratuities to the
masters; it prescribed Latin, French, geography, history, and
mathematics as the instruction to be given in them. They were
placed under the superintendence of the prefects. To continue
and complete the secondary schools were instituted the
lyceums; here the instruction was to be Greek and Latin,
rhetoric, logic, literature, moral philosophy, and the
elements of the mathematical and physical sciences. The pupils
were to be of four kinds: boursiers nationaux, scholars
nominated to scholarships by the State; pupils from the
secondary schools, admitted as free scholars by competition;
paying boarders, and paying day-scholars."
M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on the
Continent, chapter 1.
EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1833-1889.
The present System of Public Instruction.
"The question of the education of youth is one of those in
which the struggle between the Catholic Church and the civil
power has been, and still is, hottest. It is also one of those
in which France, which for a long time had remained far in the
rear, has made most efforts, and achieved most progress in
these latter years. ... Napoleon I. conceived education as a
means of disciplining minds and wills and moulding them into
conformity with the political system which he had put in
force; accordingly he gave the University the monopoly of
public education. Apart from the official system of teaching,
no competition was allowed except that specially authorised,
regulated, and controlled by the State itself. Religious
instruction found a place in the official programmes, and
members of the clergy were even called on to supply it, but
this instruction itself, and these priests themselves, were
under the authority of the State. Hence two results: on the
one hand the speedy impoverishment of University education,
... on the other hand, the incessant agitation of all those
who were prevented by the special organisation given to the
University from expounding their ideas or the faith that was
in them from the professorial chair. This agitation was begun
and carried on by the Catholic Church itself, as soon as it
felt more at liberty to let its ambitions be discerned.
{717}
On this point the Church met with the support of a good number
of Liberals, and it is in a great measure to its initiative
that are due the three important laws of 1833, 1850, and 1875,
which have respectively given to France freedom of primary
education, of secondary education, and finally that of higher
education; which have given, that is to say, the right to
everyone, under certain conditions of capacity and character,
to open private schools in competition with the three orders
of public schools. But the Church did not stop there. Hardly
had it insured liberty to its educational institutions--a
liberty by which all citizens might profit alike, but of which
its own strong organisation and powerful resources enabled it
more easily to take advantage--hardly was this result obtained
than the Church tried to lay hands on the University itself,
and to make its doctrines paramount there. ... Thence arose a
movement hostile to the enterprises of the Church, which has
found expression since 1880 in a series of laws which Excluded
her little by little from the positions she had won, and only
left to her, as to all other citizens, the liberty to teach
apart from, and concurrently with, the State. The right to
confer degrees has been given back to the State alone; the
privilege of the 'letter of obedience' has been abolished;
religious teaching has been excluded from the primary schools;
and after having 'laicized,' as the French phrase is, the
curriculum, the effort was persistently made to 'laicize' the
staff. .... From the University point of view, the territory
of France is divided into seventeen academies, the chief towns
of which are Paris, Douai, Caen, Rennes, Poitiers, Bordeaux,
Toulouse, Montpellier, Aix, Grenoble, Chambéry, Lyons,
Besançon, Nancy, Dijon, Clermont, and Algiers. Each academy
has a rector at its head, who, under the authority of the
Minister of Public Instruction, is charged with the material
administration of higher and secondary education, and with the
methods of primary instruction in his district. The
administration of this last belongs to the prefect of each
department, assisted by an academy-inspector. In each of these
three successive stages--department, academy, and central
administration--is placed a council, possessing administrative
and disciplinary powers. The Departmental Council of Public
Instruction, which comprises six officials ... forms a
disciplinary council for primary education, either public or
free (i. e., State or private). This council sees to the
application of programmes, lays down rules, and appoints one
or more delegates in each canton to superintend primary
schools. The Academic Council ... performs similar functions
with regard to secondary and higher education. The Higher
Council of Public Instruction sits at Paris. It comprises
forty-four elected representatives of the three educational
orders, nine University officials, and four 'free'
schoolmasters appointed by the Minister, and is the
disciplinary court of appeal for the two preceding councils.
... Such is the framework, administrative as well as judicial,
in which education, whether public or free, lives and moves.
... Since 1882 Primary Education has been compulsory for all
children of both sexes, from the age of six to the end of the
thirteenth year, unless before reaching the latter age they
have been able to pass an examination, and to gain the
certificate of primary studies. To satisfy the law, the
child's name must be entered at a public or private school; he
may, however, continue to receive instruction at home, but in
this case, after he has reached the age of eight, he must be
examined every year before a State board. ... At the age of
thirteen the child is set free from further teaching, whatever
may be the results of the education he has received. ... In
public schools the course of instruction does not include, as
we have said, religious teaching; but one day in the week the
school must take a holiday, to allow parents to provide such
teaching for their children, if they wish to do so. The school
building cannot be used for that purpose. In private schools
religious instruction may be given, but this is optional. The
programme of primary education includes: moral and civic
instruction; reading, writing, French, geography and history
(particularly those of France); general notions of law and
science; the elements of drawing, modelling, and music; and
gymnastics. No person of either sex can become a teacher,
either public or private, unless he possesses the 'certificate
of capacity for primary instruction' given by a State board.
For the future--putting aside certain temporary
arrangements--no member of a religious community will be
eligible for the post of master in a public school. ... As a
general rule, every commune is compelled to maintain a public
school, and, if it has more than 500 inhabitants, a second
school for girls only. ... The sum total of the State's
expenses for primary education in 1887 is as high as
eighty-five million francs (£3,400,000), and that without
mentioning grants for school buildings, whereas in 1877 the
sum total was only twelve millions (£480,000). ... From 1877
to 1886, the number of public schools rose from 61,000 to
66,500; that of the pupils from 4,200,000 to 4,500,000, with
96,600 masters and mistresses; that of training schools for
male teachers from 79 to 89, of training schools for female
teachers from 18 to 77, with 5,400 pupils (3,500 of them
women), and 1,200 masters. As to the results a single fact
will suffice. In these ten years, before the generations newly
called to military service have been able to profit fully by
the new state of things, the proportion of illiterate recruits
(which is annually made out directly after the lots are drawn)
has already fallen from 15 to 11 per cent."
A. Lebon and P. Pelet, France as it is, chapter 5.
"In 1872, after the dreadful disaster of the war, Monsieur
Thiers, President of the Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale,
and Monsieur Jules Simon, Minister of Public Instruction, felt
that what was most important for the nation was a new system
of public instruction, and they set themselves the task of
determining the basis on which this new system was to be
established. In September, 1882, Monsieur Jules Simon issued a
memorable circular calling the attention of all the most
distinguished leaders of thought to some proposed plans. He
did not long remain in power, but in his retirement he wrote a
book entitled: 'Réforme de l'Enseignement Secondaire.'
Monsieur Bréal, who was commissioned to visit the schools of
Germany, soon after published another book which aroused new
enthusiasm in France. ... From that day a complete educational
reform was decided on.
{718}
In 1872 we had at the Ministeré de l'Instruction Publique
three distinguished men: Monsieur Dumont for the Enseignement
Supérieur, one from whom we hoped much and whose early death
we had to mourn in 1884; Monsieur Zévort for the Enseignement
Secondaire, who also died ere the good seed which he had sown
had sprung up and borne fruit (1887); and Monsieur Buisson to
whose wisdom, zeal, and energy we owe most of the work of the
Enseignement Primaire. At their side, of maturer years than
they, stood Monsieur Gréard, Recteur de l'Académie de Paris.
... All the educationists of the first French Revolution had
insisted on the solidarity of the three orders of education;
maintaining that it was not possible to separate one from
another, and that there ought to be a close correspondence
between them. This principle lies at the root of the whole
system of French national instruction. Having established this
principle, the four leaders called upon all classes of
teachers to work with them, and professors who had devoted
their life to the promotion of superior instruction brought
their experience and their powers of organization to bear upon
schools for all classes, from the richest to the poorest. ...
But to reform and to reconstruct a system of instruction is
not a small task. It is not easy to change at once the old
methods, to give a new spirit to the masters, to teach those
who think that what had been sufficient for them need not be
altered and is sufficient forever. However, we must say that
as soon as the French teachers heard of the great changes
which were about to take place, they were all anxious to rise
to the demands made on them, and were eager for advice and
help. Lectures on pedagogy and psychology were given to them
by the highest professors of philosophy, and these lessons
were so much appreciated that the attention of the University
of France was called to the necessity for creating at the
Sorbonne a special course of lectures on pedagogy. Eleven
hundred masters and mistresses attended them the first year
that they were inaugurated; from that time till now their
number has always been increasing. Now we have at the Sorbonne
a Chaire Magistrale and Conférences for the training of
masters and professors; and the faculties at Lyons, Bordeaux,
Nancy, and Montpellier have followed the example given at the
Sorbonne, Paris. ... In 1878, the Musée Pedagogique was
founded; in 1882, began the publication of the Revue
Pedagogique and the Revue Internationale de l'Enseignement.
Four large volumes of the Dictionnaire de Pédagogie, each
containing about 3,000 closely printed pages, have also come
out under the editorship of Monsieur Buisson, all the work of
zealous teachers and educationists. In 1879 normal schools
were opened. Then in 1880 primary schools, and in 1882 we may
say that the Ecoles Maternelles and the Ecoles Enfantines were
created, so different are they from the infant schools or the
Salles d'Asile; in 1883 a new examination was established for
the Professorat and the Direction des Ecoles Normales, as well
as for the inspectors of primary instruction; and in July,
1889, the law about public and private teaching was
promulgated, perhaps one of the most important that has ever
been passed by the Republic."
Mme. Th. Armagnac, The Educational
Renaissance of France (Education, September, 1890).
EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1890-1891.
Statistics.
The whole number of pupils registered in the primary,
elementary and superior schools, public and private, of France
and Algiers (excluding the "écoles maternelles") for the
school-year 1890-91, was 5,593,883; of which 4,384,905 were in
public schools (3,760,601, "laïque," and 624,304
"congréganiste"), and 1,208,978 in private schools (151,412
"laïques," and 1,057,566 "congréganiste"). Of 36,484
communes, 35,503 possessed a public school, and 875 were
joined for school purposes with another commune. The male
teachers employed in the elementary and superior public
schools numbered 28,657; female teachers, 24,273; total
52,930.
Ministère de l'Instruction publique, Résumé des
états de situation de l'enseignement primaire pour
l'année scolaire 1890-1891.
EDUCATION:
Ireland.
"The present system of National Education in Ireland was
founded in 1831. In this year grants of public money for the
education of the poor were entrusted to the lord-lieutenant in
order that they might be applied to the education of the
people. This education was to be given to children of every
religious belief, and to be superintended by commissioners
appointed for the purpose. The great principle on which the
system was founded was that of 'united secular and separate
religious instruction.' No child should be required to attend
any religious instruction which should be contrary to the
wishes of his or her parents or guardians. Times were to be
set apart during which children were to have such religious
instruction as their parents might think proper. It was to be
the duty of the Commissioners to see that these principles
were carried out and not infringed on in any way. They had
also power to give or refuse money to those who applied for
aid to build schools. Schools are 'vested' and 'non-vested.'
Vested schools are those built by the Board of National
Education; non-vested schools are the ordinary schools, and
are managed by those who built them. If a committee of persons
build a school, it is looked on by the Board as the 'patron.'
If a landowner or private person builds a school, he is
regarded as the patron if he has no committee. The patron,
whether landlord or committee, has power to appoint or dismiss
a manager, who corresponds with the Board. The manager is also
responsible for the due or thorough observance of the laws and
rules. Teachers are paid by him after he certifies that the
laws have been kept, and gives the attendance for each
quarter. When an individual is patron, he may appoint himself
manager and thus fill both offices. ... The teachers are paid
by salaries and by results fees. The Boards of Guardians have
power to contribute to these results fees. Some unions do so
and are called 'contributory.' School managers in Ireland are
nearly always clerics of some denomination. There are
sometimes, but very rarely, lay managers. ... From the census
returns of 1881 it appears that but fifty-nine per cent. of
the people of Ireland are able to read and write, The greater
number of national schools through Ireland are what are
called 'unmixed,' that is, attended by children of one
denomination only. The rest of the schools are called 'mixed,'
that is, attended by children of different forms of religion.
The percentage of schools that show a 'mixed' attendance tends
to become smaller each year. ... There are also twenty-nine
'model' schools in different parts of Ireland. These schools
are managed directly by the Board of National Education. ...
{719}
According to the report of the Commissioners of National
Education for 1890, the 'percentage of average attendance to
the average number of children on the rolls of the schools was
but 59.0,' and the percentage of school attendance to the
estimated population of school age in Ireland would be less
than 50. Different reasons might be given for this small
percentage of attendance. The chief reasons are, first,
attendance at school not being compulsory, and next, education
not being free. ... The pence paid for school fees in Ireland
may seem, to many people, a small matter. But in a country
like Ireland, where little money circulates, and a number of
the people are very poor, school pence are often not easily
found every week. In 1890, £104,550 4s. and 8d. was paid in
school fees, being an average of 4s. 32¾d. per unit of average
attendance."
The Irish Peasant;
by a Guardian of the Poor, chapter 8.
EDUCATION:
Norway.
"In 1739 the schools throughout the country were regulated by
a royal ordinance, but this paid so little regard to the
economical and physical condition of Norway that it had to be
altered and modified as early as 1741. Compulsory instruction,
however, had thus been adopted, securing to every child in the
country instruction in the Christian doctrine and in reading,
and this coercion was retained in all later laws. ... Many
portions of the country are intersected by high mountains and
deep fiords, so that a small population is scattered over a
surface of several miles. In such localities the law has
established 'ambulatory schools,' whose teachers travel from
one farm to another, living with the different peasants.
Although this kind of instruction has often been most
incomplete and the teachers very mediocre, still educational
coercion has everywhere been in force, and Christian
instruction everywhere provided for the children. These
'ambulatory schools' formerly existed in large numbers, but
with the increase of wealth and population, and the growing
interest taken in education, their number has gradually
diminished, and that of fixed circle-schools augmented in the
same proportion."
G. Gade, Report on the Educational System of Norway
(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information,
July, 1871).
"School attendance is compulsory for at least 12 weeks each
year for all children in the country districts from 8 years of
age to confirmation, and from 7 years to confirmation in the
towns. According to the law of 1889, which in a measure only
emphasizes preceding laws, each school is to have the
necessary furnishings and all indispensable school material.
The Norwegians are so intent upon giving instruction to all
children that in case of poverty of the parents the
authorities furnish text-books and the necessary clothing, so
that school privileges may be accorded to all of school age."
U. S. Commissioner of Education,
Report, 1889-90, page 513.
EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1809.
Education and the liberation movement.
"The most important era in the history of public instruction
in Prussia, as well as in other parts of Germany, opens with
the efforts put forth by the king and people, to rescue the
kingdom from the yoke of Napoleon in 1809. In that year the
army was remodeled and every citizen converted into a soldier;
landed property was declared free of feudal service;
restrictions on freedom of trade were abolished, and the whole
state was reorganized. Great reliance was placed on infusing a
German spirit into the people by giving them freer access to
improved institutions of education from the common school to
the university. Under the councils of Hardenberg, Humboldt,
Stein, Altenstein, these reforms and improvements were
projected, carried on, and perfected in less than a single
generation. The movement in behalf of popular schools
commenced by inviting C. A. Zeller, of Wirtemberg, to Prussia.
Zeller was a young theologian, who had studied under
Pestalozzi in Switzerland, and was thoroughly imbued with the
method and spirit of his master. On his return he had convened
the school teachers of Wirtemberg in barns, for want of better
accommodations being allowed him, and inspired them with a
zeal for Pestalozzi's methods, and for a better education of
the whole people. On removing to Prussia he first took charge
of the seminary at Koenigsberg, soon after founded the
seminary at Karalene, and went about into different provinces
meeting with teachers, holding conferences, visiting schools,
and inspiring school officers with the right spirit. The next
step taken was to send a number of young men, mostly
theologians, to Pestalozzi's institution at Ifferten, to
acquire his method, and on their return to place them in new,
or reorganized teachers' seminaries. To these new agents in
school improvement were joined a large body of zealous
teachers, and patriotic and enlightened citizens, who, in ways
and methods of their own, labored incessantly to confirm the
Prussian state, by forming new organs for its internal life,
and new means of protection from foreign foes. They proved
themselves truly educators of the people. Although the
government thus not only encouraged, but directly aided in the
introduction of the methods of Pestalozzi into the public
schools of Prussia, still the school board in the different
provinces sustained and encouraged those who approved and
taught on different systems. ... Music, which was one of
Pestalozzi's great instruments of culture, was made the
vehicle of patriotic songs, and through them the heart of all
Germany was moved to bitter hatred of the conqueror who had
desolated her fields and homes, and humbled the pride of her
monarchy. All these efforts for the improvement of elementary
education, accompanied by expensive modifications in the
establishments of secondary and superior education, were made
when the treasury was impoverished, and taxes the most
exorbitant in amount were levied on every province and commune
of the kingdom."
H. Barnard, National Education in Europe, pages 83-84.
For this notable educational work begun in Prussia in 1809,
and which gave a new character to the nation, "the
Providential man appeared in Humboldt, as great a master of
the science and art of education as Scharnhorst was a master
of the organisation of war. Not only was he himself, as a
scholar and an investigator, on a level with the very first of
his age, not only had he lived with precisely those masters of
literature, Schiller and Goethe, who were most deliberate in
their self-culture, and have therefore left behind most
instruction on the higher parts of education, but he had been
specially intimate with F. A. Wolf. It is not generally known
in England that Wolf was not merely the greatest philologer
but also the greatest teacher and educationist of his time.
... Formed by such teachers, and supported by a more intense
belief in culture than almost any man of his time, Humboldt
began his work in April, 1809.
{720}
In primary education Fichte had already pointed
to Pestalozzi as the best guide. One of that reformer's
disciples, C. A. Zeller, was summoned to Königsberg to found a
normal school, while the reformer himself, in his weekly
educational journal, cheered fallen Prussia by his panegyric,
and wrote enthusiastically to Nicolovius pronouncing him and
his friends the salt and leaven of the earth that would soon
leaven the whole mass. It is related that in the many
difficulties which Zeller not unnaturally had to contend with,
the King's genuine benevolence, interest in practical
improvement, and strong family feeling, were of decisive use.
... The reform of the Gymnasia was also highly successful.
Süvern here was among the most active of those who worked
under Humboldt's direction. In deference to the authority of
Wolf the classics preserved their traditional position of
honour, and particular importance was attached to Greek. ...
But it was on the highest department of education that
Humboldt left his mark most visibly. He founded the University
of Berlin; he gave to Europe a new seat of learning, which has
ever since stood on an equality with the very greatest of
those of which Europe boasted before. We are not indeed to
suppose that the idea of such a University sprang up for the
first time at this moment, or in the brain of Humboldt. Among
all the losses which befell Prussia by the Peace of Tilsit
none was felt more bitterly than the loss of the University of
Halle, where Wolf himself had made his fame. Immediately after
the blow fell, two of the Professors of Halle made their way
to Memel and laid before the King a proposal to establish a
High School at Berlin. This was on August 22nd, 1807. ... On
September 4th came an Order of Cabinet, in which it was
declared to be one of the most important objects to compensate
the loss of Halle. It was added that neither of the two
Universities which remained to Prussia, those of Königsberg
and Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, could be made to supply the place
of Halle, Königsberg being too remote from the seat of
Government and Frankfurt not sufficiently provided with means.
At Berlin a University could best, and at least expense, be
established. Accordingly all funds which had hitherto gone to
Halle were to go for the future to Berlin, and assurances were
to be given to the expelled Professors which might prevent
their talents being lost to the country. A University is not
founded in a day, and accordingly while Stein held office the
design did not pass beyond the stage of discussion. ...
Humboldt sent in his Report on May 12, 1809, and on August
16th followed the Order of Cabinet assigning to the new
University, along with the Academies of Science and Art, an
annual dotation of 150,000 thalers, and the Palace of Prince
Henry as its residence. During the rest of his term of office
Humboldt was occupied in negotiations with eminent men of
science all over Germany, whose services he hoped to procure.
He was certainly not unsuccessful. He secured Fichte for
Philosophy; Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Marheineke for
Theology; Savigny and Schmalz for Jurisprudence; Friedländer,
Kohlrausch, Hufeland, and Reil for Medicine; Wolf, Buttmann,
Böckh, Heindorf, and Spalding for the Study of Antiquity;
Niebuhr and Rühs for History; Tralles for Mathematics (Gauss
refused the invitation). The University was opened at
Michaelmas of 1810, and as the first result of it the first
volume of Niebuhr's Roman History, opening so vast a field of
historical speculation, was published in 1811. ... Altogether
in that period of German history the relations of literature,
or rather culture in general, to politics are remarkable and
exceptional. There had been a most extraordinary intellectual
movement, a great outpouring of genius, and yet this had taken
place not, as according to some current theories it ought to
have done, in the bosom of political liberty, but in a country
where liberty was unknown. And as it was not the effect, so
the new literature did not seem disposed to become the cause,
of liberty. Not only was it careless of internal liberty, but
it was actually indifferent to national independence. The
golden age of German literature is the very period when
Germany was conquered by France. ... So far literature and
culture seemed a doubtful benefit, and might almost be
compared to some pernicious drug, which should have the power
to make men forget their country and their duties. Not
unreasonably did Friedrich Perthes console himself for the
disasters of Germany by reflecting that at least they had
brought to an end 'the paper time,' the fool's paradise of a
life made up of nothing more substantial than literature. In
Humboldt's reform we have the compensation for all this. Here
while on the one hand we see the grand spectacle of a nation
in the last extremity refusing to part with the treasures of
its higher life, on the other hand that higher life is no
longer unnaturally divorced from political life. It is prized
as one of the bulwarks of the State, as a kind of spiritual
weapon by which the enemy may be resisted. And in the new and
public-spirited generation of thinkers, of which Fichte and
Sehleiermacher were the principal representatives, culture
returns to politics the honour that has been done to it. ...
In Humboldt and his great achievements of 1809, 1810, meet and
are reconciled the two views of life which found their most
extreme representatives in Goethe and Stein."
J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein,
part 6, chapter 3 (volume 2).
EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1874.
The Educational Administration.
"There is no organic school-law in Prussia, ... though
sketches and projects of such a law have more than once been
prepared. But at present the public control of the higher
schools is exercised through administrative orders and
instructions, like the minutes of our Committee of Council on
Education. But the administrative authority has in Prussia a
very different basis for its operations from that which it has
in England, and a much firmer one. It has for its basis these
articles of the Allgemeine Landrecht, or common law of
Prussia, which was drawn up in writing in Frederick the
Great's reign, and promulgated in 1794, in the reign of his
successor:--'Schools and universities are State institutions,
having for their object the instruction of youth in useful and
scientific knowledge. Such establishments are to be instituted
only with the State's previous knowledge and consent. All
public schools and public establishments of education are
under the State's supervision, and must at all times submit
themselves to its examinations and inspections.
{721}
Whenever the appointment of teachers is not by virtue of the
foundation or of a special privilege vested in certain persons
or corporations, it belongs to the State. Even where the
immediate supervision of such schools and the appointment of
their teachers is committed to certain private persons or
corporations, new teachers cannot be appointed, and important
changes in the constitution and teaching of the school cannot
be adopted without the previous knowledge or consent of the
provincial school authorities. The teachers in the gymnasiums
and other higher schools have the character of State
functionaries.' ... It would be a mistake to suppose that the
State in Prussia shows a grasping and centralising spirit in
dealing with education; on the contrary, it makes the
administration of it as local as it possibly can; but it takes
care that education shall not be left to the chapter of
accidents. ... Prussia is now divided into eight provinces,
and these eight provinces are again divided into twenty-six
governmental districts, or Regierungen. There is a Provincial
School Board (Provinzial-Schulcollegium) in the chief town of
each of the eight provinces, and a Governmental District Board
in that of each of the twenty-six Regierungen. In general, the
State's relations with the higher class of secondary schools
are exercised through the Provincial Board; its relations with
the lower class of them, and with the primary schools, through
the District Board. In Berlin, the relations with these also
are managed by the Provincial Board. A
Provinzial-Schulcollegium has for its president the High
President of the province; for its director the vice-president
of that governmental district which happens to have for its
centre the provincial capital. The Board has two or three
other members, of whom, in general, one is a Catholic and one
is a Protestant; and one is always a man practically
conversant with school matters. The District Board has in the
provincial capitals the same president and director as the
Provincial Board; in the other centres of Regierungen it has
for its president the President of the Regierung, and three or
four members selected on the same principle as the members of
the Provincial Board. The provincial State authority,
therefore, is, in general, for gymnasiums, the larger
progymnasiums, and Realschulen of the first rank, the
Provincial School Board; for the smaller progymnasiums,
Realschulen of the second rank, the higher Burgher Schools,
and the primary schools of all kinds, the Governmental
District Board. Both boards are in continual communication
with the Educational Minister at Berlin. ... Besides the
central and provincial administration there is a local or
municipal administration for schools that are not Crown
patronage schools. ... In most towns the local authority for
schools of municipal patronage is the town magistracy,
assisted by a Stadtschulrath; sometimes the local authority is
a Curntorium or Schulcommission."
M. Arnold, Higher Schools and Universities
in Germany, chapter 3.
"The secondary school differs from the elementary schools by a
course of instruction going beyond the immediate demands of
every-day life; from the special school, by the more general
character of the courses of instruction; from the university,
by its preparatory character. It has the special aim to give
that sound basis of scientific and literary education which
enables a man to participate in solving the higher problems of
life in church, state, and society, In accordance with their
historical development, two directions can be clearly traced,
viz., the gymnasium and the real-school: the former comprising
gymnasia and pro-gymnasia; and the latter real-schools of the
first class, real-schools of the second class, and higher
burgher-schools."
History of Secondary Instruction in Germany
(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of
Information, 1874, no. 3), page 41.
"The name gymnasium came into use as early as the sixteenth
century. The ministerial decree of the 12th of November, 1812,
ordered that all learned school institutions, such as lyceums,
pedagogiums, collegiums, Latin schools, etc., should bear the
name gymnasium. A gymnasium is and has long been a classical
school."
U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90, page 318.
ALSO IN: V. Cousin, Report on the state of
public instruction in Prussia.
EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1885-1889.
The Elementary School-System.
"The New Yorker, anxious for a high degree of perfection in
the elementary schools of his State, must be struck forcibly
by the following merits of the Elementary School System of
Prussia. ...
1. Compulsory education laws, necessitating a full and regular
attendance of the children of school age.
2. Official courses of study fixing the work to be
accomplished in each of the different grades of schools.
Uniformity is thus secured in the work done in all schools of
the same class.
3. Definite qualifications and experience in teaching for
eligibility to the office of school commissioner.
4. Provisions elevating teaching to the dignity of a
profession and making the tenure of office secure.
5. Trained teachers in rural as well as city districts and a
school year of at least forty weeks.
6. General supervision of instruction for children of school
age in private schools and families, including the
qualifications of instructors. ...
Every Prussian child between the ages of 6 and 14 must, except
in cases of severe illness or other extraordinary cause, be
present at every session of the school he attends. The lists
of the children of school age, in charge of the local police
(in rural districts the Burgermeister), are kept so carefully
that it is impossible to escape the provisions of the
compulsory education laws, as much so as it is to evade the
military service. Dispensations amounting to more than four
weeks in the school year are never given to children under 12
years of age, and to them only when sickness in the family or
other unusual cause make it advisable. ... In order to
understand the qualifications required of school commissioners
(Kreisschulinspektoren) in Prussia, let us review briefly the
requirements of male teachers.
1. Elementary schools. It may be stated at the outset that
almost all the male elementary school teachers are normal
school graduates. To insure similarity in training and a
thorough knowledge of character, few foreigners and few beside
normal school (Schullehrer-Seminar) graduates are admitted to
the male teaching force. From 6 to 14 the would-be teacher has
attended, let us suppose, an elementary school. He must then
absolve the three years' course laid down for the preparatory
schools. ... He is now ready for the normal school. At the
close of a three years' course at the normal school he is
admitted to the first teachers' examination. If successful, he
must next practice as candidate or assistant teacher not less
than two years and not more than five years before his
admission to the final test. ... If a teacher fails to pass
the examination within five years, he is dropped.
{722}
2. Middle schools. For teachers of lower classes the same
requirements with the addition of ability to teach a foreign
tongue, or natural history in its broadest sense, and the
attainment of the mark 'good' in all subjects at the final
examination. ... For higher classes, a special examination
provided for middle school teachers. ... There is really no
gradation between elementary and middle schools. The latter
merely go on somewhat further with elementary school work,
introducing French, Latin and English.
3. High schools (Realschulen, Realgymnasien, Progymnasien and
Gymnasien). All high school teachers, except those engaged in
technical departments, must first absolve the nine years'
gymnasial course, which commences at the close of the third
school year.
Next comes the university course of three or four years. The
candidate is now ready for the State examination. The subjects
for this State examination ... are divided into four classes:
1. The ancient languages and German;
2. Mathematics and natural sciences;
3. History and geography;
4. Religion and Hebrew.
At the close of one year's practice to test teaching capacity
he receives a second certificate and is thereupon engaged
provisionally. ... The school commissioners ... are either
former regular high school teachers, general doctors of
philosophy or more rarely theologians, or former normal school
teachers. All must have had practical experience in teaching.
... The work to be accomplished in each Prussian elementary
school is definitely laid down by law. Each school is not a
law unto itself as to what shall be done and when and how this
is to be done. I have learned by practical experience that the
work in ungraded schools compares most favorably with that of
graded schools."
J. R. Parsons, Jr., Prussian Schools through
American eyes, chapter 1, section 5-10.
Prussian elementary schools are now free. "In this respect
Prussia has passed through three stages. Under the first
elementary schools were entirely self-supporting; under the
second they received State aid, but were still largely
self-supporting; under the third, Laws of 1888 and 1889,
elementary schools were made free and the State pays a larger
proportion of the cost of maintenance. Districts must pay for
repairs, new buildings and cost of heating. If unwilling to
provide proper accommodations for the children of school age,
they can be forced by the government to do so. Poor districts
may receive special government aid to meet such expenses. ...
The direct aim of the laws of June 14, 1888, and March 31,
1889, was to lighten the burden of local taxation for schools
for children of school age. These laws have had a beneficial
effect in increasing slightly the wages of teachers. Teachers'
salaries are still quite small in Prussia, particularly in the
case of females. Allowances are generally made for house-rent
and fuel. Teachers in rural districts are provided with a
house and garden. Their salaries are often not much more than
half those paid city teachers of the same grade, and yet, as
regards professional training and character of work, they are
fully equal to city teachers. ... The average annual salary
received by teachers in Prussia in 1886 was $267.50. The
average for the same year in New York was $409.27. The
Prussian teacher, however, received fuel and dwelling free, in
addition to his regular salary. ... In 1885 the population of
Prussia was 28,318,470, and the total cost of public education
per caput was $1,7717. Drs. Schneider and Petersilie of
Berlin, in 'Preussische Statistik 101,' published in 1889,
reckon the total cost for 1888, excluding army and navy
schools, at $50,192,857. ... In Prussia, elementary
instruction is the first consideration. The resolution adopted
by the national assembly (Landtag) December 22, 1870, is a
good illustration of this. It was at the very crisis of the
Franco-German war, yet the Landtag called on the government to
increase the number of normal schools and the capacity of
those already existing, and 'thus to put an end to the
practice of filling up teachers' vacancies by appointing
unqualified individuals.'"
J. R. Parsons, Jr., Prussian Schools through
American eyes, chapter 1, section 15-17.
"Throughout Prussia there is now one school-room and one
teacher to 446 inhabitants and 78.8 children actually
attending school. This shows that there are far too few
teachers. But the government and the cities have recently
devoted considerable sums to the establishment of new places
for teachers, so that, in the year 1881, there were 10,000
more teachers working in the public schools than in 1873. The
salaries of the teachers were also raised. The average payment
in the country is 954 marks, in the cities 1,430 marks. ...
The expense of maintaining the Prussian national schools
amounts annually to about 102,000,000 of marks, 43,000,000 of
which are paid by the cities. One hundred and ten colleges for
the training of teachers are now engaged in the education of
male and female instructors, with an attendance of 9,892
pupils; that is, there is one pupil to every 2,758
inhabitants. In the case of the female teachers only, a
considerable degree of assistance is rendered by private
institutions. ... The intermediary schools established in
1872, and recently converted into the higher citizen schools,
form a transition from the national schools to the higher
schools. These teach religion, German, French, English,
history and geography, arithmetic and mathematics, natural
history and physics, writing, drawing, singing, and
gymnastics. The course embraces six years without Latin, with
the privilege of one year's service in the army instead of
three. Complementary to the national school is the finishing
school. There are a large number in Prussia, namely, 1,261
with 68,766 pupils: 617 with 10,395 in the country, and 644
with 58,371 in the cities. Of these 644,342 are obligatory by
local statutes, 302 are optional. Since the law of 1878
special care has been devoted to the compulsory education of
orphaned children. ... The preparatory instruction of female
teachers leaves much to be desired."
F. Kirchner, Contemporary Educational Thought
in Prussia (Educational Review, May, 1891).
"About 25 per cent. of all the teachers in public middle
schools are women, hence ... women hold positions in these
schools more frequently than in the lower, the purely
elementary, schools of the kingdom. The greatest ratio of
women teachers in Prussia is found in private middle schools,
where 2,422 of 3,126 (or nearly 80 percent.) are women. ... In
all the public schools of Prussia (elementary, middle, and
secondary) only 10,600 women teachers were employed [1887], or
14¼ per cent. of all the teachers in the kingdom. ... Before
the public schools of the kingdom had the care and close
supervision on the part of the state which they have now, many
more private schools were in existence than at present. During
the last 25 years the private schools have not increased in
numbers, but perceptibly decreased."
U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report,
1889-90, pages 287-289.
{723}
EDUCATION:
Russia.
"After serfdom had been abolished, the Emperor Alexander II.
saw that the indispensable consequence of this great reform
must be a thorough reorganization of public instruction. In
1861 a committee was appointed to draw up the plan of a law.
In 1862 M. Taneef submitted to the Emperor a 'General plan for
the organization of popular education,' which contained some
very excellent points. The result was the General Regulations
of 1864, which are still in force. ... The difficulties which
a complete reorganization of popular education meets in Russia
are enormous. They are principally caused by the manner in
which the inhabitants live, scattered over a large extent of
country, and by their extreme poverty. ... The density of
population is so small that there are only 13.6 inhabitants to
one square kilometer (2.6 square kilometers to 1 square mile),
instead of 69 as in France. Under these circumstances only the
children from the center hamlet and those living-nearest to it
could attend school regularly, especially during the
winter-months. The remainder of the inhabitants would pay
their dues without having any benefit, which would necessarily
foster discontent. As Prince Gagarin says, 'It has, therefore,
not been possible to make education in Russia compulsory, as
in Germany, nor even to enforce the establishment of a school
in each community.' It is doubtless impossible at present to
introduce into Russia the educational systems of the western
countries."
E. de Laveleye, Progress of Education in Russia
(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of
Information, 1875, no. 3), pages 31-32.
EDUCATION:
Scotland.
"The existing system of education in Scotland is an outcome of
causes deeply involved in the political and religious history
of the country. ... This system was preceded by a complicated
variety of educational agencies, of which the chief were
parish schools, founded upon a statute of 1646, which was
revived and made operative in 1696. Parish and burgh schools,
supported by local funds and by tuition fees, made up the
public provision for education. In addition there were schools
partly maintained by parliamentary grants, mission and
sessional schools maintained by the Established Church and the
Free Church, and other parochial and private schools. Parish
and burgh schools carried instruction to the level of the
universities, which were easily accessible to all classes. The
date of the passage of the 'Scotch Education Act' (1872) was
opportune for the organization of these various agencies into
a system maintained by the combined action of the Government
and local authorities. In framing the Scotch act care was
taken, as in framing the English act two years before, to
guard the rights of the Government with respect to funds
appropriated from the public treasury. At the same time equal
care was shown for the preservation of the Scotch ideal. This
was a broad and comprehensive ideal, embracing the different
grades of scholastic work. ... This ideal differentiates the
Scotch act from the English act passed two years before. The
latter related to elementary schools exclusively; the former
has a wider scope, providing the foundations of a system of
graded schools correlated to the universities which lie beyond
its province. With respect to the interests of the Government,
the two acts are substantially the same. ... For the general
direction of the system a Scotch educational department was
created, composed, like the English department, of lords of
the privy council, and having the same president. ... The act
ordered every parent to secure the instruction of his children
between the ages of 5 and 13, or until a certificate of
exemption should be secured. Parents failing in this
obligation are subject to prosecution and penalty by fine or
imprisonment. The compulsory provision extends to blind
children. Parochial or burghal authorities were authorized to
pay the tuition fees of those children whose parents could not
meet the expenditure, a provision rendered unnecessary by the
recent remission of all fees. The Scotch act, by a sweeping
clause, made compulsory attendance universal; the English act
left the matter of compulsion to local managers. A subsequent
act (1878) fixed the standard of exemption in Scotland at the
fifth [grade, or year of study], which pupils should pass at
11 years of age. In 1883, the upper limit of compulsory
attendance in Scotland was raised to 14 years. ... The
universities of Scotland have been more intimately related to
the life of the common people than those of any other country.
In this respect, even more if possible than in their
constitution, they present a marked contrast to the English
universities. To their democratic spirit may be traced many of
the characteristics which differentiate the Scotch people and
policies from those of England. To their widespread influence,
to the ambitions which they awakened, and the opportunities
which they brought within the reach of the whole body of
Scottish youth is due, in large measure, the independent and
honorable part that Scotland has played in the history of the
United Kingdom. This popular character of the universities has
been fostered by the curriculum of the common schools, by the
easy passage from the schools to the higher institutions; by
the inexpensive mode of student life in the university towns,
and by the great number of scholarship funds available for the
poor. These conditions, however, have not been without their
disadvantages. Of these, the chief are the low entrance
standards and the consequent forcing of preparatory
instruction upon the university professors. ... As a result of
long-continued efforts a Scotch universities act was passed in
1889. This act provided for the reorganization of the four
universities; for the elevation of their standards; the
enrichment of their curricula, and the increase of their
resources. ... The Scotch universities have taken part in the
popular movements of the last decade. They maintain local
examinations for secondary schools and students. St. Andrews
has been particularly active in promoting the higher education
of women, having instituted the special degree of L. L. A.
(lady literate in arts). Edinburgh also grants a certificate
in arts to women. Aberdeen has recently appointed a lecturer
on education, following thus the precedent set by Edinburgh
and St. Andrews. The four universities are united in a scheme
of university extension."
U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,
volume 1, pages 188-207.
{724}
EDUCATION:
Sweden.
"Sweden has two ancient and famous universities--Upsala and
Lund. That of Lund is in the south part of the kingdom, and
when founded was on Danish territory. The income from its
estates is about 176,000 rix-dollars ($46,315) per annum. It
also receives yearly aid from the state. In 1867 it had 75
professors and tutors, and 400 students. Upsala is the larger
university, located at the old town of that name--the ancient
capital of Sweden--an hour and a half by rail north of
Stockholm. It has 100 professors and tutors, and 1,449
students, an increase of 131 over the year 1869. ... This
university had its beginning as an institution of learning as
far back as 1250. In 1438 it had one academic professorship,
and was dedicated as an university in 1477. Its principal
endowment was by Gustavus Adolphus in 1624, when he donated to
it all of the estate in lands that he possessed, amounting in
all to 300 farms."
C. C. Andrews, Report on the Educational System
of Sweden (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars
of Information, July, 1871).
EDUCATION:
Switzerland.
"The influence of the Reformation, and, in the following age,
of the Jesuit reaction, gave to Switzerland, as to Germany,
its original and fundamental means and agencies of national
education, and impressed also upon the population a habit of
dutiful regard for schools and learning. It was not, however,
till forty years ago that the modern education of Switzerland
was organized. 'The great development of public education in
Switzerland,' to quote Mr. Kay, 'dates from 1832, after the
overthrow of the old oligarchical forms of cantonal government
and the establishment of the present democratic forms.'
Zürich, Lausanne, and Geneva take the lead in Switzerland as
centres of educational influence. The canton in which the work
of educational reform began was Zürich. ... The instrument of
the reform, rather the revolution, was Scherr, a trained
school-teacher from Würtemberg, a teacher, in particular, of
deaf mutes to speak articulately. This man initiated in Zürich
the new scheme and work of education, and founded the first
Training College. He was looked upon by the oligarchs, partly
feudalists, and partly manufacturers, as a dangerous
revolutionist, and was exiled from Zürich. But now a monument
to his memory adorns the city. The work which he began could
not be suppressed or arrested. Zürich has ever since taken the
lead in education among the cantons of Switzerland. Derived
originally from Germany, the system is substantially identical
with that of Germany. ... The principles and methods are
substantially alike throughout. There are, first, the communal
schools--these of course in largest number--one to every
village, even for every small hamlet, provided and maintained,
wholly or chiefly, by the commune; there are burgher schools
in towns, including elementary, real, and superior schools,
supported by the towns; there are cantonal schools--gymnasia
and industrial or technical schools--supported by the State,
that is, by the canton. There is often a Cantonal University.
There is of course a Cantonal Training School or College, and
there are institutes of various kinds. The Cantonal
Universities, however, are on a small and economical scale; as
yet there is no Federal University. School life in Switzerland
is very long, from six to fourteen or fifteen, and for all who
are to follow a profession, from fifteen to twenty-two."
J. H. Rigg, National Education, chapter 4.
EDUCATION: Modern: Asiatic Countries.
China.
"Every step in the process of teaching is fixed by unalterable
usage. So much is this the case, that in describing one school
I describe all, and in tracing the steps of one student I
point out the course of all; for in China there are no new
methods or short roads. In other countries, a teacher, even in
the primary course, finds room for tact and originality. In
those who dislike study, a love of it is to be inspired by
making 'knowledge pleasant to the taste'; and the dull
apprehension is to be awakened by striking and apt
illustrations. ... In China there is nothing of this. The land
of uniformity, all processes in arts and letters are as much
fixed by universal custom as is the cut of their garments or
the mode of wearing their hair. The pupils all tread the path
trodden by their ancestors of a thousand years ago, nor has it
grown smoother by the attrition of so many feet. The
undergraduate course may be divided into three stages, in each
of which there are two leading studies: In the first the
occupations of the student are committing to memory (not
reading) the canonical books and writing an infinitude of
diversely formed characters, as a manual exercise. In the
second, they are the translation of his text books (i. e.,
reading), and lessons in composition. In the third, they are
belles lettres and the composition of essays. Nothing could be
more dreary than the labors of the first stage. ... Even the
stimulus of companionship in study is usually denied, the
advantages resulting from the formation of classes being as
little appreciated as those of other labor saving machinery.
Each pupil reads and writes alone, the penalty for failure
being so many blows with the ferule or kneeling for so many
minutes on the rough brick pavement which serves for a floor.
At this period fear is the strongest motive addressed to the
mind of the scholar. ... This arctic winter of monotonous toil
once passed, a more auspicious season dawns on the youthful
understanding. The key of the cabala which he has been so long
and so blindly acquiring is put into his hands. He is
initiated in the translation and exposition of those sacred
books which he had previously stored away in his memory. ...
The light however is let in but sparingly, as it were, through
chinks and rifts in the long dark passage. A simple character
here and there is explained, and then, it may be after the
lapse of a year or two, the teacher proceeds to the
explication of entire sentences. Now for the first time the
mind of the student begins to take in the thoughts of those he
has been taught to regard as the oracles of wisdom. ... The
value of this exercise can hardly be overestimated. When
judiciously employed it does for the Chinese what translation
into and out of the dead languages of the west does for us. It
calls into play memory, judgment, taste, and gives him a
command of his own vernacular which, it is safe to assert, he
would never acquire in any other way. ... The first step in
composition is the yoking together of double characters.
{725}
The second is the reduplication of these binary compounds and the
construction of parallels--an idea which runs so completely through
the whole of Chinese literature that the mind of the student
requires to be imbued with it at the very outset. This is the
way he begins: The teacher writes, 'wind blows,' the pupil
adds, 'rain falls'; the teacher writes, 'rivers are long,' the
pupil adds, 'seas are deep,' or 'mountains are high,' &c. From
the simple subject and predicate, which in their rude grammar
they describe as 'dead' and' living' characters, the teacher
conducts his pupil to more complex forms, in which qualifying
words and phrases are introduced. He gives as a model some
such phrase as 'The Emperor's grace is vast as heaven and
earth,' and the lad matches it by 'The Sovereign's favor is
profound as lake and sea.' These couplets often contain two
propositions in each member, accompanied by all the usual
modifying terms; and so exact is the symmetry required by the
rules of the art that not only must noun, verb, adjective, and
particle respond to each other with scrupulous exactness, but
the very tones of the characters are adjusted to each other
with the precision of music. Begun with the first strokes of
his untaught pencil, the student, whatever his proficiency,
never gets beyond the construction of parallels. When he
becomes a member of the institute or a minister of the
imperial cabinet, at classic festivals and social
entertainments, the composition of impromptu couplets, formed
on the old model, constitutes a favorite pastime. Reflecting a
poetic image from every syllable, or concealing the keen point
of a cutting epigram, they afford a fine vehicle for sallies
of wit; and poetical contests such as that of Melibœus and
Menalcas are in China matters of daily occurrence. If a
present is to be given, on the occasion of a marriage, a
birth-day, or any other remarkable occasion, nothing is deemed
so elegant or acceptable as a pair of scrolls inscribed with a
complimentary distich. When the novice is sufficiently
exercised in the 'parallels' for the idea of symmetry to have
become an instinct, he is permitted to advance to other
species of composition which afford freer scope for his
faculties. Such are the 'shotiah,' in which a single thought
is expanded in simple language, the 'lun,' the formal
discussion of a subject more or less extended, and epistles
addressed to imaginary persons and adapted to all conceivable
circumstances. In these last, the forms of the 'complete
letter writer' are copied with too much servility; but in the
other two, substance being deemed of more consequence than
form, the new fledged thought is permitted to essay its powers
and to expatiate with but little restraint. In the third
stage, composition is the leading object, reading being wholly
subsidiary. It takes for the most part the artificial form of
verse, and of a kind of prose called 'wen-chang,' which is, if
possible, still more artificial. The reading required embraces
mainly rhetorical models and sundry anthologies. History is
studied, but only that of China, and that only in compends;
not for its lessons of wisdom, but for the sake of the
allusions with which it enables a writer to embellish classic
essays. The same may be said of other studies; knowledge and
mental discipline are at a discount and style at a premium.
The goal of the long course, the flower and fruit of the whole
system, is the 'wen-chang '; for this alone can insure success
in the pubic examinations for the civil service, in which
students begin to adventure soon after entering on the third
stage of their preparatory course. ... We hear it asserted
that 'education is universal in China; even coolies are taught
to read and write.' In one sense this is true, but not as we
understand the terms 'reading and writing.' In the
alphabetical vernaculars of the west, the ability to read and
write implies the ability to express one's thoughts by the pen
and to grasp the thoughts of others when so expressed. In
Chinese, and especially in the classical or book language, it
implies nothing of the sort. A shopkeeper may be able to write
the numbers and keep accounts without being able to write
anything else; and a lad who has attended school for several
years will pronounce the characters of an ordinary book with
faultless precision, yet not comprehend the meaning of a
single sentence. Of those who can read understandingly (and
nothing else ought to be called reading), the proportion is
greater in towns than in rural districts. But striking an
average, it does not, according to my observation, exceed one
in twenty for the male sex and one in ten thousand for the
female." The literary examinations, "coming down from the
past, with the accretions of many centuries, ... have expanded
into a system whose machinery is as complex as its proportions
are enormous. Its ramifications extend to every district of
the empire; and it commands the services of district
magistrates, prefects, and other civil functionaries up to
governors and viceroys. These are all auxiliary to the regular
officers of the literary corporation. In each district there
are two resident examiners, with the title of professor, whose
duty it is to keep a register of all competing students and to
exercise them from time to time in order to stimulate their
efforts and keep them in preparation for the higher
examinations in which degrees are conferred. In each province
there is one chancellor or superintendent of instruction, who
holds office for three years, and is required to visit every
district and hold the customary examinations within that time,
conferring the first degree on a certain percentage of the
candidates. There are, moreover, two special examiners for
each province, generally members of the Hanlin, deputed from
the capital to conduct the great triennial examination and
confer the second degree. The regular degrees are three:
1st. 'Siu-tsai' or 'Budding talent.'
2d. 'Ku-jin' or 'Deserving of promotion.'
3d. 'Tsin-shi' or 'Fit for office.'
To which may be added, as a fourth degree, the Hanlin, or
member of the 'Forest of Pencils.' ... The first degree only
is conferred by the provincial chancellor, and the happy
recipients, fifteen or twenty in each department, or 1 per
cent. of the candidates, are decorated with the insignia of
rank and admitted to the ground floor of the nine storied
pagoda. The trial for the second degree is held in the capital
of each province, by special commissioners, once in three years.
It consists of three sessions of three days each, making nine
days of almost continuous exertion--a strain to the mental and
physical powers, to which the infirm and aged frequently
succumb. In addition to composition in prose and verse, the
candidate is required to show his acquaintance with history,
(the history of China;) philosophy, criticism, and various
branches of archæology. Again 1 per cent. is decorated; but it
is not until the more fortunate among them succeed in passing
the metropolitan triennial that the meed of civil office is
certainly bestowed.
{726}
They are not, however, assigned to their respective offices
until they have gone through two special examinations within
the palace and in the presence of the emperor. On this
occasion the highest on the list is honored with the title of
'chuang yuen' or 'laureate,' a distinction so great that in
the last reign it was not thought unbefitting the daughter of
a 'chuang yuen' to be raised to the position of consort of
the Son of Heaven. A score of the best are admitted to
membership in the Academy, two or three score are attached to
it as pupils or probationers, and the rest drafted off to
official posts in the capital or in the provinces, the
humblest of which is supposed to compensate the occupant for
a life of penury and toil."
Reverend W. A. P. Martin, Report on the System of Public
Instruction in China (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 1).
ALSO IN:
W. A. P. Martin, The Chinese: their Education, &C.
EDUCATION:
Japan.
From the fourth to the eighth centuries of the Christian era,
"after the conquest of Corea by the Japanese emperor Jigo
Kogo, came letters, writing, books, literature, religion,
ethics, politics, medicine, arts, science, agriculture,
manufactures, and the varied appliances of civilization; and
with these entered thousands of immigrants from Corea and
China. Under the intellectual influence of Buddhism--the
powerful and aggressive faith that had already led captive the
half of Asia--of the Confucian ethics and philosophy, and
Chinese literature, the horizon of the Japanese mind was
immensely broadened. ... In the time of the European 'dark
ages' the Japanese were enjoying what, in comparison, was a
high state of civilization. ... Under the old regime of the
Sho-guns, all foreign ideas and influences were systematically
excluded, and the isolation of Japan from the rest of the
world was made the supreme policy of the government. Profound
peace lasted from the beginning of the seventeenth century to
1868. During this time, schools and colleges, literature and
learning, flourished. It was the period of scholastic, not of
creative, intellectual activity. The basis of education was
Chinese. What we consider the means of education, reading and
writing, were to them the ends. Of classified science there
was little or none. Mathematics was considered as fit only for
merchants and shop-keepers. No foreign languages were studied,
and their acquisition was forbidden. ... There was no
department of education, though universities were established
at Kioto and Yedo, large schools in the daimio's capitals, and
innumerable private schools all over the country. Nine-tenths
of the people could read and write. Books were very numerous
and cheap. Circulating libraries existed in every city and
town. Literary clubs and associations for mutual improvement
were common even in country villages. Nevertheless, in
comparison with the ideal systems and practice of the
progressive men of New Japan, the old style was as different
from the present as the training of an English youth in
mediæval times is from that of a London or Oxford student of
the present day. Although an attempt to meet some of the
educational necessities arising from the altered conditions of
the national life were made under the Sho-gun's regime, yet
the first attempt at systematic work in the large cities was
made under the Mikado's government, and the idea of a new
national plan of education is theirs only. In 1871 the Mom Bu
Sho, or department of education, was formed, of which the high
counselor Oki, a man of indomitable vigor and perseverance,
was made head. ... According to the scheme of national
education promulgated in 1872, the empire is divided into
eight Dai Gaku Ku, (Daigakku,) or great educational divisions.
In each of' these there is to be a university, normal school,
schools of foreign languages, high schools, and primary
schools. The total number of schools will number, it is
expected, over 55,000. Only in the higher schools is a foreign
language to be taught. In the lower schools the Japanese
learning and elementary science translated or adopted from
European or American text-books are to be taught. The general
system of instruction, methods, discipline, school-aids,
furniture, architecture, are to be largely adopted from
foreign models, and are now to a great extent in vogue
throughout the country."
W. E. Griffis, Education in Japan (U. S. Bureau of
Education, Circulars of Information, 1875, no. 2).
EDUCATION: Modern: America. A. D. 1619-1819.
Virginia.
College of William and Mary.
"In 1619--one year before the Pilgrim Fathers came to the land
named New England by Captain John Smith--Sir Edwin Sandys,
president of the Virginia Company in old England, moved the
grant of ten thousand acres of land for the establishment of a
university at Henrico. The proposed grant, which was duly
made, included one thousand acres for an Indian college; the
remainder was to be 'the foundation of a seminary of learning
for the English.' The very same year the bishops of England,
at the suggestion of the King, raised the sum of fifteen
hundred pounds for the encouragement of Indian Education. ...
Tenants were sent over to occupy the university lands, and Mr.
George Thorpe, a gentleman of His Majesty's Privy Chamber,
came over to be the superintendent of the university itself.
This first beginning of philanthropy toward the Indians and of
educational foundations for the Indians in America was
suspended by reason of the Indian massacre, in the spring of
1622, when Mr. Thorpe and three hundred and forty settlers,
including tenants of the university, were cut off by an
insurrection of savages. It was only two years after this
terrible catastrophe that the idea of a university in Virginia
was revived. Experience with treacherous Indians suggested
that the institution should be erected upon a secluded
sheltered site--an island in the Susquehanna River. ... The
plan was broken off by the death of its chief advocate and
promoter, Mr. Edward Palmer. But the idea of a university for
Virginia was not lost. ... In 1660, the colonial Assembly of
Virginia took into their own hands the project of founding
educational institutions within their borders. The motive of
the Virginians was precisely the same as that of the great and
general Court of Massachusetts, when it established Harvard
College, and grammar schools to fit youth 'for ye university.'
The Virginians voted 'that for the advance of learning,
education of youth, supply of the ministry, and promotion of
piety, there be land taken upon purchases for a college and
free schoole, and that there be, with as much speede as may be
convenient, housing erected thereon for entertainment of
students and schollers.'
{727}
It was also voted in 1660 that the various commissioners of
county courts take subscriptions on court days for the benefit
of the college, and that the commissioners send orders
throughout their respective counties to the vestrymen of all
the parishes for the purpose of raising money from such
inhabitants as 'have not already subscribed.' It appears from
the record of this legislation in Hening's Statutes of
Virginia that already in 1660, 'His Majestie's Governour,
Council of State, and Burgesses of the present grand Assembly
have severally subscribed severall considerable sumes of money
and quantityes of tobacco,' to be paid upon demand after a
place had been provided and built upon for educational
purposes. A petition was also recommended to Sir William
Berkeley, then governor of Virginia, that the King be
petitioned for letters patent authorizing collections from
'well disposed people in England for the erecting of colledges
and schooles in this countrye.' This action of the Virginians
in 1660 ought to be taken as much better evidence of an early
regard for education in that colony than the well-known saying
of Governor Berkeley would seem to indicate. In reply to an
inquiry by the lords commissioners of trades and plantations
respecting the progress of learning in the colony of Virginia,
Berkeley said, 'I thank God there are no free schools nor
printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years.'
This answer by a crusty old governor has been quoted perhaps
too often as an index of the real sentiments of colonial
Virginia toward the cause of education. Not only is the tone
of popular legislation entirely opposed to the current view,
but Berkeley's own acts should modify our judgment of his
words. He actually subscribed, with other gentlemen of the
colony, for 'a Colledge of students of the liberal arts and
sciences.' Undoubtedly Sir William did not believe in popular
education as it is now understood. If he had done so, he would
have been much in advance of his time. ... Some writers would
have us believe that the college was actually planted as early
as 1661, but this is highly improbable. Early educational
enactments in Virginia were like many of those early towns--on
paper only. And yet the Virginians really meant to have both
towns and a college. In 1688-'89, twenty-five hundred pounds
were subscribed by a few wealthy gentlemen in the colony and
by their merchant friends in England toward the endowment of
the higher education. In 1691 the colonial Assembly sent the
Reverend James Blair, the commissary or representative of the
Bishop of London, back to England to secure a charter for the
proposed college. Virginia's agent went straight to Queen Mary
and explained the educational ambition of her colony in
America. The Queen favored the idea of a college, and William
wisely concurred. The royal pair agreed to allow two thousand
pounds out of the quit-rents of Virginia toward building the
college. ... The English Government concluded to give not only
£2,000 in money, but also 20,000 acres of land, with a tax of
one penny on every pound of tobacco exported from Maryland and
Virginia, together with all fees and profits arising from the
office of surveyor-general, which were to be controlled by the
president and faculty of the college. They were authorized to
appoint special surveyors for the counties whenever the
governor and his council thought it necessary. These
privileges, granted by charter in 1693, were of great
significance in the economic history of Virginia. They brought
the entire land system of the colony into the hands of a
collegiate land office. Even after the Revolution, one-sixth
of the fees to all public surveyors continued to be paid into
the college treasury down to the year 1819, when this custom
was abolished."
H. B. Adams, The College of William and Mary
(Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education,
1887, no. 1).
EDUCATION: Modern: America: A. D. 1635.
Massachusetts.
Boston Latin School.
"The Public Latin School of Boston enjoys the distinction of
being the oldest existing school within the bounds of the
United States. It was founded in the spring of 1635, thus
ante-dating Harvard College, and has been in continuous
existence ever since, with the interruption of a few months,
during the siege of Boston, 1775-1776." The two hundred and
fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the school was
celebrated April 23, 1885, on which occasion the Reverend Phillips
Brooks, D. D., delivered an address from which the following
passages are taken: "The colony under Winthrop arrived in the
Arabella and founded Boston in 1630. On the 4th of September,
1633, the Griffin brought John Cotton from the Lincolnshire
Boston, full of pious spirit and wise plans for the new colony
with which he had cast in his lot. It has been suggested that
possibly we owe to John Cotton the first suggestion of the
first town-school. ... However this may be, here is the town
record of the 13th of the second month, 1635. It is forever
memorable, for it is the first chapter of our Book of Genesis,
the very cradle of all our race: 'At a general meeting upon
publique notice ... it was then generally agreed upon that our
brother Philemon Pormort shall be entreated to become
scholemaster, for the teaching and nourtering of children
among us.' It was two hundred and fifty years ago to-day
[April 23, 1885] just nineteen years after the day when
William Shakespeare died, just seventy-one years after the day
when he was born. How simple that short record is, and how
unconscious that short view is of the future which is wrapped
up in it! Fifty-nine thousand children who crowd the Boston
public schools to-day--and who can count what thousands yet
unborn?--are to be heard crying out for life in the dry,
quaint words of that old vote. By it the first educational
institution, which was to have continuous existence in
America, and in it the public school system of the land, came
into being. Philemon Pormort, the first teacher of the Latin
School, is hardly more than a mere shadow of a name. It is not
even clear that he ever actually taught the school at all. A
few years later, with Mr. Wheelwright, after the Hutchinson
excitement, he disappears into the northern woods, and is one
of the founders of Exeter, in New Hampshire. There are rumors
that he came back to Boston and died here, but it is all very
uncertain. ... The name 'free school' in those days seems to
have been used to characterize an institution which should not
be restricted to any class of children, and which should not
be dependent on the fluctuating attendance of scholars for its
support. It looked forward to ultimate endowment, like the
schools of England. The town set apart the rent of Deer
Island, and some of the other islands in the harbor, for its help.
{728}
All the great citizens, Governor Winthrop, Governor Vane, Mr.
Bellingham, and the rest, made generous contributions to it.
But it called, also, for support from those who sent their
children to it, and who were able to pay something; and it was
only of the Indian children that it was distinctly provided
that they should be 'taught gratis.' It was older than any of
the schools which, in a few years, grew up thick around it.
The same power which made it spring out of the soil was in all
the rich ground on which these colonists, unlike any other
colonists which the world has ever seen, had set their feet.
Roxbury had its school under the Apostle Eliot in 1645.
Cambridge was already provided before 1643. Charlestown did
not wait later than 1636. Salem and Ipswich were, both of
them, ready in 1637. Plymouth did not begin its system of
public instruction till 1663. It was in 1647 that the General
Court enacted that resolve which is the great charter of free
education in our Commonwealth, in whose preamble and ordinance
stand the immortal words: 'That learning may not be buried in
the grave of our fathers, in church and Commonwealth, the Lord
assisting our endeavors, it is therefore ordered that every
township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased
them to the number of fifty householders, shall then forthwith
appoint one within their town to teach all such children as
shall resort to him to write and read.' There can be no doubt,
then, of our priority. But mere priority is no great thing.
The real interest of the beginning of the school is the large
idea and scale on which it started. It taught the children,
little Indians and all, to read and write. But there seems
every reason to suppose that it taught also the Latin tongue,
and all that then was deemed the higher knowledge. It was the
town's only school till 1682."
The Oldest School in America, pages 5-24.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1636.
Massachusetts.
Harvard College.
"The first settlers in New England, recognizing the importance
of a higher education than could be given in the common
schools, began at once the founding of a university. The
avowed object of this university was the training of young men
for the ministry. Nothing could show clearer the spirit of
these early colonists. Though less than four thousand in
number, and scattered along the shores of Massachusetts Bay in
sixteen hamlets, they were, nevertheless, able to engage in
such an enterprise before adequate provision had been made for
food, raiment, shelter, a civil government, or divine worship;
at a time when soil and climate had disappointed them, and
their affairs were in a most critical condition; for, not only
were they called to face famine, disease, and death, but the
mother country and the surrounding savage tribes were
threatening them with war. ... It was near the close of 1636,
a little more than six years after the landing of the
Puritans, when this first step was taken by the General Court
of the Massachusetts Colony. At this assembly, presided over
by Sir Henry Vane, governor of the colony, the General Court
agreed to give £400 (a munificent sum for the time) towards
the founding of a school or college, but left the question of
its location and building to be determined by the Court that
was to sit in September of the following year. This, it is
said, was the first assembly 'in which the people by their
representatives ever gave their own money to found a place of
education.' At the next Court it was decided to locate the
college at Newtown, or 'the New Towne,' and twelve of the
principal magistrates and ministers were chosen to carry out
this design. A few months later, they changed the name of the
town to Cambridge, not only to tell their posterity whence
they came, but also, as Quincy aptly says, to indicate 'the
high destiny to which they intended the institution should
aspire.' Another year, however, passed before the College was
organized. The impulse given to it then was due to aid which
came from so unexpected a quarter that it must have seemed to
the devout men of New England as a clear indication of the
divine favor. The Reverend John Harvard, a Non-conformist
minister, was graduated, in 1635, from the Puritan college of
Emmanuel, at Cambridge, England, and came, two years later, to
America and settled in Charlestown, where he immediately took
a prominent part in town affairs. His contemporaries gave him
the title of reverend, and he is said to have officiated
occasionally in Charlestown as 'minister of God's word.' One
has recently said of him that he was 'beloved and honored, a
well-trained and accomplished scholar of the type then
esteemed,' and that in the brief period of his life in America
--scarcely more than a year--he cemented more closely
friendships that had been begun in earlier years. The project
of a college was then engrossing the thought of these early
friends and doubtless he also became greatly interested in it.
Thus it happened that, when his health failed, through his own
love of learning and through sympathy with the project of his
daily associates, he determined to bequeath one-half of his
estate, probably about £800, besides his excellent library of
three hundred and twenty volumes, towards the endowment of the
college. This bequest rendered possible the immediate
organization of the college, which went into operation 'on the
footing of the ancient institutions of Europe,' and, out of
gratitude to Harvard, the General Court voted that the new
institution should bear his name."
G. G. Bush, Harvard, pages 12-15.
ALSO IN:
J. Quincy, History of Harvard University.
S. A. Eliot, Sketch of the History of Harvard College.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1642-1732.
New England and New York.
Early Common Schools.
"New England early adopted, and has, with a single exception,
constantly maintained the principle that the public should
provide for the instruction of all the youth. That which
elsewhere, as will be found, was left to local provision, as
in New York; or to charity, as in Pennsylvania; or to parental
interest, as in Virginia, was in most parts of New England
early secured by law. ... The act of 1642 in Massachusetts,
whose provisions were adopted in most of the adjacent
colonies, was admirable as a first legislative school law. It
was watchful of the neglect of parents, and looked well after
the ignorant and the indigent. But it neither made schooling
free, nor imposed a penalty for its neglect. ... Schools were
largely maintained by rates, were free only to the
necessitous, and in not a few of the less populous districts
closed altogether or never opened. This led, five years later,
to more stringent legislation. ... As suggesting the general
scope and tenor of the law, the following extract is made. ...
{729}
'It is therefore ordered by this Court and authority thereof
that every township within this jurisdiction, after the Lord
hath increased them to the number of fifty householders, shall
then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such
children as shall resort to him, to write and read; whose
wages shall be paid, either by the parents or masters of such
children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply,
as the major part of those who order the prudentials of the
town shall appoint; provided that those who send their
children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can
have them taught for in the adjoining towns. And it is further
ordered that where any town shall increase to the number of
one hundred families or house-holders, they shall set up a
grammar-school, the master thereof being able to instruct
youths so far as they may be fitted for the university; and if
any town neglect the performance hereof, above one year, then
every such town shall pay five pounds per annum to the next
such school, till they shall perform this order.' ... Three
years after the law just cited Connecticut passed a very
similar one. ... In Rhode Island there was no attempt at a
school system prior to the efforts of John Howland about 1790.
There were schools in both Providence and Newport; but the
colony was small (with a population of less than ten thousand
in 1700), broken into feeble settlements, and offering little
opportunity for organization. ... It is claimed that, at the
surrender of the Dutch in New York (1664), so general was the
educational spirit, almost every town in the colony had its
regular school and more or less permanent teachers. After the
occupation of the province by the English, little attention
was given to education. ... Thirteen years after the
surrender, a Latin school was opened in the city; but the
first serious attempt to provide regular schooling was in the
work of the 'Society for the Propagation of the Gospel' (1704)
in the founding of Trinity School. The society kept up an
efficient organization, for many years, and at the opening of
the Revolution had established and chiefly supported more than
twenty schools in the colony. About 1732, also, there was
established in New York city a school after the plan of the
Boston Latin School, free as that was free, and which became,
according to eminent authority, the germ of the later King's
(now Columbia) College."
R. G. Boone, Education in the United States, chapter 3.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1683-1779. Pennsylvania.
Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.
"Education had not been over-looked in the policy of Penn. In
his Frame of Government we read: 'The governor and provincial
council shall erect and order all public schools, and
encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and
laudable inventions, in the said province. ... And ... a
committee of manners, education and arts, that all wicked and
scandalous living may be prevented, and that youth may be
successively trained up in virtue and useful knowledge and
arts.' The first movement to establish an educational
institution of a high grade was in the action of the Executive
Council which proposed, November 17, 1683, 'That Care be Taken
about the Learning and Instruction of Youth, to wit: A School
of Arts and Sciences.' It was not until 1689, however, that
the 'Public Grammar School' was set up in Philadelphia. This
institution, founded upon the English idea of a 'free'
school,' was formally chartered in 1697 as the 'William Penn
Charter School.' It was intended as the head of a system of
schools for all, rather than a single school for a select few,
an idea which the founders of the Charitable School, fifty
years later, had also in mind--an idea which was never carried
out in the history of either institution. The failure of
Penn's scheme of government, and the turmoil during the early
part of the eighteenth century arising from the conflicts
between different political parties, for a time influenced
very decidedly educational zeal in the province. The
government, which at the outset had taken such high ground on
the subject, ceased to exert itself in behalf of education,
and the several religious denominations and the people
themselves in neighborhood organizations took up the burden
and planted schools as best they could throughout the growing
colony. ... Feeling the importance for some provision to
supplement the education then given in the established
schools, Benjamin Franklin as early as 1743 drew up a proposal
for establishing an academy. ... He secured the assistance of
a number of friends, many of them members of the famous Junto,
and then published his pamphlet entitled 'Proposals Relating
to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.' ... On all sides
the paper met with great favor and generous support. The
result was the organization of a board of trustees, consisting
of 24 of those who had subscribed to the scheme of the
Academy, with Franklin as president. This body immediately set
about to realize the object of the pamphlet, and nourished by
subscriptions, lotteries, and gifts the Academy was placed in
a flourishing condition. ... The Academy comprised three
schools, the Latin, the English, and the mathematical, over
each of which was placed a master, one of whom was the rector
of the institution. ... The English School was neglected. The
other schools were favored, especially the Latin School. In
the eyes of Franklin and many of the supporters of the
Academy, the English School was the one of chief importance.
What we would call a 'starving out' process was begun by which
the English School was kept in a weak condition, most of the
funds going to the Latin School. ... The success of the
Academy was so gratifying to all interested in it that it was
determined to apply for a charter. This was granted to the
trustees by Thomas and Richard Penn, the proprietors, on July
13, 1753. Desirous at the same time of enlarging the course of
instruction, the trustees elected Mr. William Smith teacher of
logic, rhetoric, natural and moral philosophy. Mr. Smith
accepted the position and entered upon his duties at the
Academy in May, 1754. The history of the institution from this
date, whether known as the Academy or the College, to 1779 is
the history of the life of William Smith."
J. L. Stewart, Historical Sketch of the University of
Pennsylvania (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1892, no. 2:
Benjamin Franklin and the University., chapter 4).
{730}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1701-1717.
Connecticut.
Yale College.
"For sixty years the only school for higher education in New
England had been Harvard College, at Cambridge. The people,
and especially the clergy, of Connecticut naturally desired
the benefit of a similar establishment nearer home. The three
ministers of New Haven, Milford, and Branford first moved in
the enterprise. Ten ministers, nine of them being graduates of
Harvard College, met at Branford [1701] and made a
contribution from their libraries of about forty volumes in
folio 'for the founding of a college.' Other donations
presently came in. An Act of Incorporation was granted by the
General Court. It created a body of trustees, not to be more
than eleven in number nor fewer than seven, all to be
clergymen and at least forty years of age. The Court endowed
the College with an annual grant, subject to be discontinued
at pleasure, of one hundred and twenty pounds in 'country
pay,'--equivalent to sixty pounds sterling. The College might
hold property 'not exceeding the value of five hundred pounds
per annum'; its students were exempted from the payment of
taxes and from military service; and the Governor and his
Council gave a formal approval of its application to the
citizens for pecuniary id. ... The first President was Abraham
Pierson, minister of Killingworth, at which place he continued
to reside, though the designated seat of the College was at
Saybrook. Eight students were admitted, and arranged in
classes. At each of the first two annual commencements one
person, at the third three persons, received the degree of
Bachelor of Arts. President Pierson was succeeded, at his
death, by Mr. Andrew, minister at Milford, to which place the
elder pupils were accordingly transferred, while the rest went
to Saybrook, where two tutors had been provided to assist
their studies. ... For nearly twenty years the College of
Connecticut ... continued to be an unsatisfactory experiment.
While the rector taught some youth at Milford, and two tutors
had other pupils at Saybrook, and the few scores of books
which had been obtained for a library were divided between the
two places, there was small prospect of the results for which
institutions of learning are created. Notwithstanding the
general agreement that whatever facilities for the higher
education could be commanded should be brought together and
combined, the choice of the place was embarrassed by various
considerations. ... Saybrook, Wethersfield, Hartford, and New
Haven competed with each other for the preference, offering
such contributions as they were able towards the erection of a
college building. The offer from New Haven, larger than that
of any other town, was seven hundred pounds sterling. The plan
of fixing the College there, promoted by the great influence
of Governor Saltonstall, was adopted by the trustees; and with
money obtained by private gifts, and two hundred and fifty
pounds accruing from a sale of land given by the General
Assembly, a building was begun [1717], which finally cost a
thousand pounds sterling. ... The Assembly gave the College a
hundred pounds. Jeremiah Dummer sent from England a
substantial present of books. Governor Saltonstall contributed
fifty pounds sterling, and the same sum was presented by
Jahleel Brenton, of Newport, in Rhode Island. But the chief
patronage came from Elihu Yale,--a native of New Haven, but
long resident in the East Indies, where he had been Governor
of Fort St. George. He was now a citizen of London, and
Governor of the East India Company. His contributions,
continued through seven years, amounted to some four hundred
pounds sterling; and he was understood to have made
arrangements for a further bounty of five hundred pounds,
which, however, through unfortunate accidents, never came to
its destination. The province made a grant of forty pounds
annually for seven years."
J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
book 4, chapter 11, and book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).
EDUCATION: A. D. 1746-1787.
New York.
King's College, now Columbia College.
"The establishment of a college in the city of New York was
many years in agitation before the design was carried into
effect. At length, under an act of Assembly passed in
December, 1746, and other similar acts which followed, moneys
were raised by public lottery 'for the encouragement of
learning and towards the founding a college' within the
colony. These moneys were, in November, 1751, vested in
trustees. ... The trustees, in November, 1753, invited Dr.
Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, to be President of the
intended college. Dr. Johnson consequently removed to New York
in the month of April following, and in July, 1754, commenced
the instruction of a class of students in a room of the
school-house belonging to Trinity Church; but he would not
absolutely accept the presidency until after the passing of
the charter. This took place on the 31st of October in the
same year, 1754; from which period the existence of the
college is properly to be dated. The Governors of the college,
named in the charter, are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
the first Lord Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, both
empowered to act by proxies; the Lieutenant-governor of the
province, and several other public officers; together with the
rector of Trinity Church, the senior minister of the Reformed
Protestant Dutch Church, the ministers of the German Lutheran
Church, of the French Church, of the Presbyterian
Congregation, and the President of the college, all ex
officio, and twenty-four of the principal gentlemen of the
city. The college was to be known by the name of King's
College. Previously to the passing of the charter, a parcel of
ground to the westward of Broadway, bounded by Barclay,
Church, and Murray streets and the Hudson River, had been
destined by the vestry of Trinity Church as a site for the
college edifice; and, accordingly, after the charter was
granted, a grant of the land was made on the 13th of May,
1755. ... The part of the land thus granted by Trinity Church,
not occupied for college purposes, was leased, and became a
very valuable endowment to the college. The sources whence the
funds of the institution were derived, besides the proceeds of
the lotteries above mentioned, were the voluntary
contributions of private individuals in this country, and sums
obtained by agents who were subsequently sent to England and
France. In May, 1760, the college buildings began to be
occupied. In 1763 a grammar school was established. In March,
1763, Dr. Johnson resigned the presidency, and the Reverend Dr.
Myles Cooper, of Oxford, who had previously been appointed
Professor of Moral Philosophy and assistant to the President,
was elected in his place. ... In consequence of the dispute
between this and the parent country, Dr. Cooper returned to
England, and the Reverend Benjamin Moore was appointed praeses pro
tempore during the absence of Dr. Cooper, who, however, did
not return. On the breaking out of the Revolutionary War the
business of the college was almost entirely broken up, and it
was not until after the return of peace that its affairs were
again regularly attended to.
{731}
In May, 1784, the college, upon its own application, was
erected into a university; its corporate title was changed
from King's College to Columbia College, and it was placed
under the control of a board termed Regents of the University.
... The college continued under that government until April,
1787, when the Legislature of the State restored it to its
original position under the present name of Columbia College.
... At the same time a new body was created, called by the
same name, 'The Regents of the University,' under which all
the seminaries of learning mentioned in the act creating it
were placed by the legislature. This body still exists under
its original name."
Columbia College Handbook, pages 5-9.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1776-1880.
New England and New York.
State School Systems.
"It was not until over thirty years after the close of the war
of 1776 that a regular system of schools at the public expense
was established. New England boasted with pride of being the
first in education, as she had been in war. Her example was
closely followed by the other States. In New York, in 1805,
many gentlemen of prominence associated for the purpose of
establishing a free school in New York City for the education
of the children of persons in indigent circumstances, and who
did not belong to, or were not provided for by, any religious
society. These public-spirited gentlemen presented a memorial
to the Legislature, setting forth the benefits that would
result to society from educating such children, and that it
would enable them more effectually to accomplish the objects
of their institution if the schools were incorporated. The
bill of incorporation was passed April 9, 1805. This was the
nucleus from which the present system of public schools
started into existence. Later on, in the year 1808, we find
from annual printed reports that two free schools were opened
and were in working order. ... It was the intention of the
founders of these schools--among whom the names of De Witt
Clinton, Ferdinand de Peyster, John Murray, and Leonard
Bleecker stand prominent as officers--to avoid the teachings
of any religious society; but there were among the people many
who thought that sufficient care was not being bestowed upon
religious instruction: to please these malcontents the
literary studies of the pupils were suspended one afternoon in
every week, and an association of fifty ladies of
'distinguished consideration ·in society' met on this day and
examined the children in their respective catechisms. ... To
read, write, and know arithmetic in its first branches
correctly, was the extent of the educational advantages which
the founders of the free-school system deemed necessary for
the accomplishment of their purposes."
A. H. Rhine, The Early Free Schools of
America. (Popular Science Monthly, March, 1880).
EDUCATION: A. D. 1785-1880.
The United States.-
Land-grants for Schools.
"The question of the endowment of educational institutions by
the Government in aid of the cause of education seems to have
met no serious opposition in the Congress of the
Confederation, and no member raised his voice against this
vital and essential provision relating to it in the ordinance
of May 20, 1785, 'for ascertaining the mode of disposing of
lands in the Western Territory.' This provided: 'There shall
be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township for the
maintenance of public schools within said township.' This was
an endowment of 640 acres of land (one section of land, one
mile square) in a township 6 miles square, for the support and
maintenance of public schools' within said township.' The
manner of establishment of public schools thereunder, or by
whom, was not mentioned. It was a reservation by the United
States, and advanced and established a principle which finally
dedicated one thirty-sixth part of all public lands of the
United States, with certain exceptions as to mineral, &c., to
the cause of education by public schools. ... In the
Continental Congress, July 13, 1787, according to order, the
ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the United
States northwest of the river Ohio' came on, was read a third
time, and passed [see NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D.1787]. It
contained the following: 'Art. 3. Religion, morality, and
knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness
of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
be encouraged.' The provision of the ordinance of May 20,
1785, relating to the reservation of the sixteenth section in
every township of public land, was the inception of the
present rule of reservation of certain sections of land for
school purposes. The endowment was the subject of much
legislation in the years following. The question was raised
that there was no reason why the United States should not
organize, control, and manage these public schools so endowed.
The reservations of lands were made by surveyors and duly
returned. This policy at once met with enthusiastic approval
from the public, and was tacitly incorporated into the
American system as one of its fundamental organic ideas.
Whether the public schools thus endowed by the United States
were to be under national or State control remained a
question, and the lands were held in reservation merely until
after the admission of the State of Ohio in 1802. ... To each
organized Territory, after 1803, was and now is reserved the
sixteenth section (until after the Oregon Territory act
reserved the thirty-sixth as well) for school purposes, which
reservation is carried into grant and confirmation by the
terms of the act of admission of the Territory or State into
the Union; the State then becoming a trustee for school
purposes. These grants of land were made from the public
domain, and to States only which were known as public-land
States. Twelve States, from March 3, 1803, known as
public-land States, received the allowance of the sixteenth
section to August 14, 1848. ... Congress, June 13, 1812, and
May 26, 1824, by the acts ordering the survey of certain towns
and villages in Missouri, reserved for the support of schools
in the towns and villages named, provided that the whole
amount reserved should not exceed one-twentieth part of the
whole lands included in the general survey of such town or
village. These lots were reserved and sold for the benefit of
the schools. Saint Louis received a large fund from this
source. ... In the act for the organization of the Territory
of Oregon, August 14, 1848, Senator Stephen A. Douglas
inserted an additional grant for school purposes of the
thirty-sixth section in each township, with indemnity for all
public-land States thereafter to be admitted, making the
reservation for school purposes the sixteenth and thirty-sixth
sections, or 1,280 acres in each township of six miles square
reserved in public-land States and Territories, and confirmed
by grant in terms in the act of admission of such State or
Territory into the Union. From March 13, 1853, to June 30,
1880, seven States have been admitted into the Union having a
grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, and the
same area has been reserved in eight Territories."
T. Donaldson, The Public Domain, chapter 13.
{732}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1789.
The United States.
"The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for
the education of the people; and in the Convention that framed
it, I believe the subject was not even mentioned. A motion to
insert a clause providing for the establishment of a national
university was voted down. I believe it is also the fact, that
the Constitutions of only three of the thirteen original
States made the obligation to maintain a system of Free
Schools a part of their fundamental law."
H. Mann, Lectures and Annual Reports on
Education, lecture 5.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1793.-Massachusetts.
Williams College.
"Williams College, at Williamstown, Berkshire County, Mass.,
was chartered in 1793. The town and the college were named in
honor of Colonel Ephraim Williams, who had command of the forts
in the Hoosac Valley, and was killed in a battle with the
French and Indians, September 8, 1755. By his will he
established a free school in the township which was to bear
his name. The most advanced students of this free school
became the first college class, numbering 4, and received the
regular degree of bachelor of arts in the autumn of 1795. The
small amount left by the will of Colonel Williams was
carefully managed for 30 years by the executors, and they then
obtained permission from the State legislature to carry out
the benevolent purposes of the testator. The fund for building
was increased by individual subscriptions, and by the avails
of a lottery, which the general court granted for that
purpose. The building which is now known as West College was
then erected for the use of the free school and was finished
in 1790. ... The free school was opened in 1791, with Reverend
Ebenezer Fitch, a graduate of Yale College, as preceptor, and
Mr. John Lester as assistant. ... The success of the school
was so great that the next year the trustees asked the
legislature to incorporate the school into a college. This was
done, and a grant of $4,000 was made from the State treasury
for the purchase of books and philosophical apparatus. The
college was put under the care of 12 trustees, who elected
Preceptor Fitch the first president of the college."
E. B. Parsons (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1891, no. 6:
History of Higher Education in Massachusetts, chapter 9).
EDUCATION: A. D. 1795-1867.
The United States.
State School Funds.
"Connecticut took the lead in the creation of a permanent fund
for the support of schools. The district known as the Western
Reserve, in Northern Ohio, had been secured to her in the
adjustment of her claims to lands confirmed to her by the
charter of King Charles II. The Legislature of the State, in
1795, passed an act directing the sale of all the land
embraced in the Reserve, and setting apart the avails as a
perpetual fund for the maintenance of common schools. The
amount realized was about $1,120,000. ... New York was the
next State to establish a common school fund for the aid and
maintenance of schools in the several school districts of the
State. The other Northern States except New Hampshire,
Vermont, Pennsylvania, and one or two others, have established
similar funds. ... In all the new States, the 500,000 acres,
given by act of Congress, on their admission into the Union,
for the support of schools, have been sacredly set apart for
that purpose, and generally other lands belonging to the
States have been added to the fund. ... Prior to the war the
Slave States had made attempts to establish plans for popular
education, but with results of an unsatisfactory character. In
Virginia a school system was in force for the education of the
children of indigent white persons. In North Carolina a large
school fund, exceeding two millions of dollars, had been set
apart for the maintenance of schools. In all of these States
common schools had been introduced, but they did not flourish
as in the North and West. ... There was not the same
population of small and independent farmers, whose families
could be united into a school district. ... A more serious
obstacle was the slave population, constituting one-third of
the whole, and in some of the States more than half, whom it
was thought dangerous to educate."
V. M. Rice, Special Report on the Present State of
Education, 1867, pages 19-23.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1837.
Michigan.
The University.
"In 1804, when Michigan was organized as a Territory, Congress
granted a township of land for a seminary of learning, and the
university to be established in 1817 was to be in accordance
with this grant. The Territorial government committed the
interests of higher education to the care of the Governor and
the Judges, and it is supposed that through the exertions of
Honorable A. B. Woodward, then presiding Judge of the Supreme Court
of the Territory of Michigan, that the act establishing a
university was framed. A portion of this most curious document
of the early History of Michigan will be given. It is entitled
'An act to establish the Catholepistemiad or University
Michigania.' 'Be it enacted by the Governor and Judges of the
Territory of Michigan, That there shall be in the said
Territory a catholepistemiad or university denominated the
Catholepistemiad or University Michigania. The
Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania shall be composed
of thirteen didaxum or professorships; first, a didaxia or
professorship catholepistemia, or universal science, the
dictator or professor of which shall be president of the
institution; second, a didaxia or professorship of
anthropoglassica, or literature embracing all of the
episternum or sciences relative to language; third, a didaxia
or professorship of mathematica or mathematics; fourth, a
didaxia or professorship of physiognostica or natural history,
etc.' The act thus continues through the whole range of the
'thirteen didaxum'; the remaining nine are as follows: Natural
philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, medical sciences, economical
sciences, ethical sciences, military sciences, historical
sciences, and intellectual. The university was to be under the
control of the professors and president, who were to be
appointed by the Governor, while the institution was to be the
center and controlling power of the educational system of the
State.
{733}
It was to be supported by taxation by an increase of the
amount of taxes already levied, by 15 per cent. Also power was
given to raise money for the support of the university by
means of lotteries. This remarkable document was not without
its influence in shaping the public school policy of Michigan,
but it was many years before the State approximated its
learned provisions. Impracticable as this educational plan
appears for a handful of people in the woods of Michigan, it
served as a foundation upon which to build. The officers and
president were duly appointed, and the work of the new
university began at once. At first the university appeared as
a school board, to establish and maintain primary schools
which they held under their charge. Then followed a course of
study for classical academies, and finally, in October, 1817,
an act was passed establishing a college in the city of
Detroit called 'The First College of Michigania.' ... The
people contributed liberally to these early schools, the sum
of three thousand dollars being subscribed at the beginning.
... An act was passed on the 30th of April, 1821, by the
Governor and Judges establishing a university in Detroit to
take the place of the catholepistemiad and to be called the
'University of Michigan.' In its charter nearly all the powers
of the former institution were substantially confirmed, except
the provision for taxes and lotteries. ... The second
corporation, known as the 'University of Michigan,' carried on
the work of education already begun from 1821 to the third
organization, in 1837. The education was very limited,
consisting in one classical academy at Detroit, and part of
the time a Lancasterian school. The boards of education kept
up and transmitted the university idea to such an extent that
it may be said truly and legally that there was one University
of Michigan, which passed through three successive stages of
development marked by the dates 1817, 1821, and 1837," at
which time it was removed to Ann Arbor.
F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher
Education (U: S. Bureau of Education. Circular of
Information, 1890, no. 1), pages 239-241.
ALSO IN:
E. M. Farrand, History of the University of Michigan.
A. Ten Brook, American State Universities.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1818-1821.
Massachusetts.
Amherst College.
"Amherst College originated in a strong desire on the part of
the people of Massachusetts to have a college near the central
part of the State, where the students should be free from the
temptations of a large city, where the expenses of an
education should not be beyond the means of those who had but
little money, and where the moral and religious influences
should be of a decidedly Christian character. ... The
ministers of Franklin County, at a meeting held in Shelburne
May 18, 1815, expressed it as their opinion that a literary
institution of high order ought to be established in Hampshire
County, and that the town of Amherst appeared to them to be
the most eligible place for it. Their early efforts for a
literary institution in Hampshire County resulted in the first
place in the establishment of an academy in Amherst, which was
incorporated in the year 1816. ... In the year 1818 a
constitution was adopted by the trustees of Amherst Academy,
for the raising and management of a fund of at least $50,000,
for the classical education of indigent young men of piety and
talents for the Christian ministry. ... This charity fund may
be said to be the basis of Amherst College, for though it was
raised by the trustees of Amherst Academy it was really
intended to be the foundation of a college, and has always
been a part of the permanent funds of Amherst College, kept
sacredly from all other funds for the specific object for
which it was given. ... This was for many years the only
permanent fund of Amherst College, and without this it would
have seemed impossible at one time to preserve the very
existence of the college. So Amherst College grew out of
Amherst Academy, and was built permanently on the charity fund
raised by the trustees of that academy. ... Although the
charity fund of $50,000 had been received in 1818, it was not
till 1820 that the recipient felt justified in going forward
to erect buildings for a college in Amherst. Efforts were made
for the removal of Williams College from Williamstown to
Hampshire County, and to have the charity fund used in
connection with that college; and, if that were done, it was
not certain that Amherst could be regarded as the best
location for the college. But the legislature of Massachusetts
decided that Williams College could not be removed from
Williamstown, and nothing remained but for the friends of the
new institution to go on with their plans for locating it at
Amherst. ... This first college edifice was ready for
occupation and dedicated on the 18th of September, 1821. In
the month of May, 1821, Reverend Zephaniah Swift Moore, D. D., was
unanimously elected by the trustees of Amherst Academy
president of the new institution."
T. P. Field (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circular' of
Information, 1891, no. 6: History of Higher Education
in Massachusetts), chapter 11.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1837.
Massachusetts.
Horace Mann and the State System.
"When Massachusetts, in 1837, created a Board of Education,
then were first united into a somewhat related whole the more
or less excellent but varied and independent organizations,
and a beginning made for a State system. It was this massing
of forces, and the hearty co-operation he initiated, in which
the work of Horace Mann showed its matchless greatness.
'Rarely,' it has been said, 'have great ability, unselfish
devotion, and brilliant success, been so united in the course
of a single life.' A successful lawyer, a member of the State
Legislature, and with but limited experience as a teacher, he
has left his impress upon the educational sentiments of, not
only New England, but the United States."
R. G. Boone, Education in the U. S., page 103.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1840-1886.
The United States.
Proportion of College Students.
"It is estimated that in 1840 the proportion of college
students to the entire population in the United States was 1
to 1,540; in 1860, 1 to 2,012; in 1870,1 to 2,546; in 1880, 1
to 1,840; and in 1886, 1 to about 1,400, Estimating all our
combined efforts in favor of higher education, we fall far
short of some of the countries of the Old World."
F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher
Education in the U. S. (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1890, no. 1), page 36.
{734}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1844-1876.
Canada.
Ontario School System.
"From the earliest settlement of Ontario, schools were
established as the wants of the inhabitants required. The
Legislature soon recognized the needs of the country, and made
grants of land and money in aid of elementary, secondary, and
superior education. Statutes were passed from time to time for
the purpose of opening schools to meet the demands of the
people. The sparsely settled condition of the Province delayed
for a while the organization of the system. It was not until
1844 that the elementary schools were put on a comprehensive
basis. In that year the Reverend Egerton Ryerson, LL. D., was
appointed Chief Superintendent of Education, and the report
which he presented to the House of Assembly sketched in an
able manner the main features of the system of which he was
the distinguished founder, and of which he continued for
thirty-three years to be the efficient administrator. In 1876
the office of chief superintendent was abolished, and the
schools of the Province placed under the control of a member
of the Government with the title of Minister of Education. ...
The system of education in Ontario may be said to combine the
best features of the systems of several countries. To the Old
World it is indebted for a large measure of its stability,
uniformity and centralization; to the older settled parts of
the New World for its popular nature, its flexibility and its
democratic principles which have given, wherever desirable,
local control and individual responsibility. From the State of
New York we have borrowed the machinery of our school; from
Massachusetts the principle of local taxation; from Ireland
our first series of text books; from Scotland the co-operation
of parents with the teacher, in upholding his authority; from
Germany the system of Normal Schools and the Kindergarten; and
from the United States generally the non-denominational
character of elementary, secondary, and university education.
Ontario may claim to have some features of her system that are
largely her own. Among them may be mentioned a division of
state and municipal authority on a judicious basis; clear
lines separating the function of the University from that of
the High Schools, and the function of the High Schools from
that of the Public or elementary schools; a uniform course of
study; all High and Public Schools in the hands of
professionally trained teachers; no person eligible to the
position of inspector who does not hold the highest grade of a
teacher's certificate, and who has not had years of experience
as a teacher; inspectors removable if inefficient, but not
subject to removal by popular vote; the examinations of
teachers under Provincial instead of local control; the
acceptance of a common matriculation examination for admission
to the Universities and to the learned professions; a uniform
series of text books for the whole Province; the almost entire
absence of party politics in the manner in which school
boards, inspectors and teachers discharge their duties; the
system national instead of sectarian, but affording under
constitutional guarantees and limitations protection to Roman
Catholic and Protestant Separate Schools and denominational
Universities."
J. Millar, Educational System of the Province of Ontario.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1862.
The United States.
Land-grant for industrial Colleges.
"Next to the Ordinance of 1787, the Congressional grant of
1862 is the most important educational enactment in America.
... By this gift forty-eight colleges and universities have
received aid, at least to the extent of the Congressional
grant; thirty-three of these, at least, have been called into
existence by means of this act. In thirteen States the
proceeds of the land scrip were devoted to institutions
already in existence. The amount received from the sales of
land scrip from twenty-four of these States aggregates the sum
of $13,930,456, with land remaining unsold estimated at nearly
two millions of dollars. These same institutions have received
State endowments amounting to over eight million dollars. The
origin of this gift must be sought in local communities. In
this country all ideas of national education have arisen from
those States that have felt the need of local institutions for
the education of youth. In certain sections of the Union,
particularly the North and West, where agriculture was one of
the chief industries, it was felt that the old classical
schools were not broad enough to cover all the wants of
education represented by growing industries. There was
consequently a revulsion from these schools toward the
industrial and practical side of education. Evidences of this
movement are seen in the attempts in different States to found
agricultural, technical, and industrial schools. These ideas
found their way into Congress, and a bill was introduced in
1858, which provided for the endowment of colleges for the
teaching of agriculture and the mechanical arts. The bill was
introduced by Honorable Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont; it was
passed by a small majority, and was vetoed by President
Buchanan. In 1862 the bill was again presented with slight
changes, passed and signed, and became a law July 2, 1862. ...
It stipulated to grant to each State thirty thousand acres of
land for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which
the States were respectively entitled by the census of 1860,
for the purpose of endowing 'at least one college where the
leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific
and classical studies, and including military tactics, to
teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture
and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the Legislatures of
the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the
liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in
the several pursuits and professions of life.' ... From this
proposition all sorts of schools sprang up, according to the
local conception of the law and local demands. It was thought
by some that boys were to be taught agriculture by working on
a farm, and purely agricultural schools were founded with the
mechanical arts attached. In other States classical schools of
the stereotyped order were established, with more or less
science; and, again, the endowment in others was devoted to
scientific departments. The instruction of the farm and the
teaching of pure agriculture have not succeeded in general,
while the schools that have made prominent those studies
relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, upon the whole,
have succeeded best. ... In several instances the managers of
the land scrip have understood that by this provision the
State could not locate the land within the borders of another
State, but its assignees could thus locate lands, not more
than one million acres in any one State. By considering this
question, the New York land scrip was bought by Ezra Cornell,
and located by him for the college in valuable lands in the
State of Wisconsin, and thus the fund was augmented. However,
the majority of the States sold their land at a sacrifice,
frequently for less than half its value. There was a lull in
the land market during the Civil War, and this cause, together
with the lack of attention in many States, sacrificed the gift
of the Federal Government. The sales ranged all the way from
fifty cents to seven dollars per acre, as the average price
for each State."
F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher
Education (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circulars of Information, 1890, no. 1), pages 47-49.
{735}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1862-1886.
New York.
Cornell University.
"On the second of July, 1862, ... [President Lincoln] signed
the act of congress, donating public lands for the
establishment of colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts.
This act had been introduced into congress by the Honorable Justin
S. Morrill. ... The Morrill act provided for a donation of
public land to the several states, each state to receive
thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative it
sent to congress. States not containing within their own
borders public land subject to sale at private entry received
land scrip instead. But this land scrip the recipient states
were not allowed to locate within the limits of any other
state or of any territory of the United States. The act
laconically directed 'said scrip to be sold by said states.'
The proceeds of the sale, whether of land or scrip, in each
state were to form a perpetual fund. ... In the execution of
this trust the State of New York was hampered by great and
almost insuperable obstacles. For its distributive share it
received land scrip to the amount of nine hundred and ninety
thousand acres. The munificence of the endowment awakened the
cupidity of a multitude of clamorous and strangely unexpected
claimants. ... If the princely domain granted to the State of
New York by congress was not divided and frittered away, we
owe it in great measure to the foresight, the energy, and the
splendid courage of a few generous spirits in the legislature
of whom none commanded greater respect or exercised more
influence than Senator Andrew Dickson White, the gentleman who
afterwards became first president of Cornell University. ...
But the all-compelling force which prevented the dispersion
and dissipation of the bounty of congress was the generous
heart of Ezra Cornell. While rival institutions clamored for a
division of the 'spoils,' and political tricksters played
their base and desperate game, this man thought only of the
highest good of the State of New York, which he loved with the
ardor of a patriot and was yet to serve with the heroism of a
martyr. ... When the legislature of the State of New York was
called upon to make some disposition of the congressional
grant, Ezra Cornell sat in the senate. ... Of his minor
legislative achievements I shall not speak. One act, however,
has made his name as immortal as the state it glorified. By a
gift of half a million dollars (a vast sum in 1865, the last
year of the war!) he rescued for the higher education of New
York the undivided grant of congress; and with the united
endowments he induced the legislature to establish, not merely
a college of applied science but a great modern
university--'an institution,' according to his own admirable
definition, 'where any person can find instruction in any
study.' It was a high and daring aspiration to crown the
educational system of our imperial state with an organ of
universal knowledge, a nursery of every science and of all
scholarship, an instrument of liberal culture and of practical
utility to all classes of our people. This was, however, the
end; and to secure it Ezra Cornell added to his original gift
new donations of land, of buildings, and of money. ... But one
danger threatened this latest birth of time. The act of
congress donating land scrip required the states to sell it.
The markets were immediately glutted. Prices fell. New York
was selling at an average price of fifty cents an acre. Her
princely domain would bring at this rate less than half a
million dollars! Was the splendid donation to issue in such
disaster? If it could be held till the war was over, till
immigration opened up the Northwest, it would be worth five
times five hundred thousand dollars! So at least thought one
far-seeing man in the State of New York. And this man of
foresight had the heart to conceive, the wisdom to devise, and
the courage to execute--he alone in all the states--a plan for
saving to his state the future value of the lands donated by
congress. Ezra Cornell made that wonderful and dramatic
contract with the State of New York! He bound himself to
purchase at the rate of sixty cents per acre the entire right
of the commonwealth to the scrip, still unsold; and with the
scrip, thus purchased by him as an individual he agreed to
select and locate the lands it represented, to pay the taxes,
to guard against trespasses and defend from fires, to the end
that within twenty years when values had appreciated he might
sell the land and turn into the treasury of the State of New
York for the support of Cornell University the entire net
proceeds of the enterprise. Within a few years Ezra Cornell
had located over half a million acres of superior pine land in
the Northwestern states, principally in Wisconsin. Under bonds
to the State of New York to do the state's work he had spent
about $600,000 of his own cash to carry out the trust
committed to him by the state, when, alas, in the crisis of
1874, fortune and credit sank exhausted and death came to free
the martyr-patriot from his bonds. The seven years that
followed were the darkest in our history. ... Ezra Cornell was
our founder; Henry W. Sage followed him as wise masterbuilder.
The edifices, chairs and libraries which bear the name of
'Sage' witness to [his] later gifts: but though these now
aggregate the princely sum of $1,250,000, [his] management of
the university lands has been [his] greatest achievement. From
these lands, with which the generosity and foresight of Ezra
Cornell endowed the university, there have been netted under
[Mr. Sage's] administration, not far short of $4,000,000, with
over 100,000 acres still to sell. Ezra Cornell's contract with
the state was for twenty years. It expired August 4, 1886,
when a ten years' extension was granted by the state. The
trust will be closed in 1896."
J. G. Schurman, Address at Inauguration to the
Presidency of Cornell University, November 11, 1892.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1866-1869.
The United States.
Bureau of Education.
"Educators, political economists, and statesmen felt the need
of some central agency by which the general educational
statistics of the country could be collected, preserved,
condensed, and properly arranged for distribution. This need
found expression finally in the action taken at a convention
of the superintendence department of the National Educational
Association, held at Washington February, 1866, when it was
resolved to petition Congress in favor of a National Bureau of
Education. ...
{736}
The memorial was presented in the House of Representatives by
General Garfield, February 14, 1866, with a bill for the
establishment of a National Bureau on essentially the basis
the school superintendents had proposed. Both bill and
memorial were referred to a committee of seven members. ...
The bill was reported back from the committee, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing for the
creation of a department of education instead of the bureau
originally proposed. Thus altered, it was passed by a vote of
nearly two to one. In the Senate it was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary ... who the following winter
reported it without amendment and with a recommendation that
it pass, which it did on the 1st of March, 1867, receiving on
the next day the approval of the President. By the act of July
28, 1868, which took effect June 30, 1869, the Department of
Education was abolished, and an Office of Education in the
Department of the Interior was established, with the same
objects and duties. ... The act of March 2, 1867, ...
established an agency 'for the purpose of collecting such
statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress
of education in the several States and Territories, and of
diffusing such information respecting the organization and
management of school systems and methods of teaching as shall
aid the people of the United States in the establishment and
maintenance of efficient school systems and otherwise promote
the cause of education.' It will be perceived that the chief
duty of the office under the law is to act as an educational
exchange. Exercising and seeking to exercise no control
whatever over its thousands of correspondents, the office
occupies a position as the recipient of voluntary information
which is unique."
C. Warren, Answers to Inquiries about the
U. S. Bureau of Education, chapters 2-3.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.
New York.
Public Schools made entirely free.
The public schools of the State of New York were not entirely
free until 1867. In his report to the Legislature made in
February of that year, the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Honorable Victor M. Rice, said: "The greatest defect
in our school system is, as I have urged in previous reports,
the continuance of the rate bill system. Our common schools
can never reach their highest degree of usefulness until they
shall have been made entirely free. ... To meet this public
demand, to confer upon the children of the State the blessings
of free education, a bill has already been introduced into
your honorable body. ... The main features of the bill are the
provisions to raise, by State tax, a sum about equal to that
raised in the districts by rate bills, and to abolish the rate
bill system; to facilitate the erection and repair of school
houses." The bill referred to was passed at the same session
of the Legislature, and in his next succeeding report,
Superintendent Rice gave the following account of the law and
its immediate effects: "While the general structure of the
school law was not disturbed, a material modification was made
by the Act (chap. 406, Laws of 1867), which took effect on the
first day of October of the same year, and which, among other
things, provided for the abolishment of rate-bills, and for
increased local and State taxation for school purposes. This
was primarily a change in the manner of raising the requisite
funds; not an absolute increase of the aggregate amount to be
raised. It involved and encouraged such increase, so far as
the inhabitants in the several school districts should
authorize it, by substituting taxation exclusively on
property, for a mixed assessment which, in part, was a tax on
attendance. Thus relieved of an old impediment, and supplied
with additional power and larger resources, the cause of
public instruction, during the last fiscal year, has wrought
results unequaled in all the past. ... The effect of this
amendment has not been confined to the financial policy
thereby inaugurated. It is distinctly traceable in lengthened
terms of school, in a larger and more uniform attendance, and
in more liberal expenditures for school buildings and
appliances."
Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State
of New York, Annual Report, 1869, pages 5-6.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.
Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University.
"By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of Baltimore, the
sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a university
[chartered in 1867] and a hospital, $3,500,000 being
appropriated to each. ... To the bequest no burdensome
conditions were attached. ... Just what this new university
was to be proved a very serious question to the trustees. The
conditions of Mr. Hopkins's bequest left the determination of
this matter open. ... A careful investigation led the trustees
to believe that there was a growing demand for opportunities
to study beyond the ordinary courses of a college or a
scientific school, particularly in those branches of learning
not included in the schools of law, medicine and theology.
Strong evidence of this demand was afforded by the increasing
attendance of American students upon the lectures of the
German universities, as well as by the number of students who
were enrolling themselves at Harvard and Yale for the
post-graduate courses. It was therefore determined that the
Johns Hopkins should be primarily a university, with advanced
courses of lectures and fully equipped laboratories; that the
courses should be voluntary, and the teaching not limited to
class instruction. The foundation is both old and new. In so
far as each feature is borrowed from some older university,
where it has been fairly tried and tested, it is old, but at
the same time this particular combination of separate features
has here been made for the first time. ... In the ordinary
college course, if a young man happens to be deficient in
mathematics, for example, he is either forced to lose any
advantage he may possess in Greek or Latin, or else is obliged
to take a position in mathematics for which he is unprepared.
In the college department of the Johns Hopkins, this
disadvantage does not exist; the classifying is specific for
each study. The student has also the privilege of pushing
forward in any one study as rapidly as he can with advantage;
or, on the other hand, in case of illness or of unavoidable
interruption, of prolonging the time devoted to the course, so
that no part of it shall be omitted. As the studies are
elective, it is possible to follow the usual college course if
one desires. Seven different courses of study are indicated,
any of which leads to the Baccalaureate degree, thus enabling
the student to direct and specialize his work. The same
standard of matriculation and the same severity of
examinations are maintained in all these courses.
{737}
A student has the privilege of extending his study beyond the
regular class work, and he will be credited with all such
private and outside study, if his examiners are satisfied of
his thoroughness and accuracy."
S. B. Herrick, The Johns Hopkins University
(Scribner's Monthly, December 1879).
EDUCATION: A. D. 1867-1891.
The United States.
The Peabody Education Fund.
"The letter announcing and creating the Peabody endowment was
dated February 7, 1867. In that letter, after referring to the
ravages of he late war, the founder of the Trust said: 'I feel
most deeply that it is the duty and privilege of the more
favoured and wealthy portions of our nation to assist those
who are less fortunate.' He then added: 'I give one million of
dollars for the encouragement and promotion of intellectual,
moral, and industrial education among the young of the more
destitute portions of the Southern and Southwestern States of
the Union.' On the day following, ten of the Trustees selected
by him held a preliminary meeting in Washington. Their first
business meeting was held in the city of New York, the 19th of
March following, at which a general plan was adopted and an
agent appointed. Mr. Peabody returned to his native country
again in 1869, and on the 1st day of July, at a special
meeting of the Trustees held at Newport, added a second
million to the cash capital of the fund. ... According to the
donor's directions, the principal must remain intact for
thirty years. The Trustees are not authorized to expend any
part of it, nor yet to add to it any part of the accruing
interest. The manner of using the interest, as well as the
final distribution of the principal, was left entirely to the
discretion of a self-perpetuating body of Trustees. Those
first appointed had, however, the rare advantage of full
consultation with the founder of the Trust while he still
lived, and their plans received his cordial and emphatic
approbation. ... The pressing need of the present seemed to be
in the department of primary education for the masses, and so
they determined to make appropriations only for the assistance
of public free schools. The money is not given as a charity to
the poor. It would be entirely inadequate to furnish any
effectual relief if distributed equally among all those who
need it, and would, moreover, if thus widely dissipated,
produce no permanent results. But the establishment of good
public schools provides for the education of all children,
whether rich or poor, and initiates a system which no State
has ever abandoned after a fair trial. So it seemed to the
donor as well as to his Trustees, that the greatest good of
the greatest number would be more effectually and more
certainly attained by this mode of distribution than by any
other. No effort is made to distribute according to
population. It was Mr. Peabody's wish that those States which
had suffered most from the ravages of war should be assisted
first."
American Educational Cyclopædia, 1875, pages 224-225.
The report made by the treasurer of the Fund in 1890, showed a
principal sum invested to the amount of $2,075,175.22,
yielding an income that year of $97,818. In the annual report
of the U. S. Commissioner of Education made February 1, 1891, he
says: "It would appear to the student of education in the
Southern States that the practical wisdom in the
administration of the Peabody Fund and the fruitful results
that have followed it could not be surpassed in the history of
endowments."
Proceedings of the Trustees of the Peabody
Education Fund, 1887-1892.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1884-1891.
California.
Leland Stanford Junior University.
"The founding at Palo Alto of 'a university for both sexes,
with the colleges, schools, seminaries of learning, mechanical
institutes, museums, galleries of art, and all other things
necessary and appropriate to a university of high degree,' was
determined upon by the Honorable Leland Stanford and Jane Lathrop
Stanford in 1884. In March of the year following the
Legislature of California passed an Act providing for the
administration of trust funds in connection with institutions
of learning. November 14, 1885, the Grant of Endowment was
publicly made, in accordance with this Act, and on the same
day the Board of Trustees held its first meeting in San
Francisco. The work of construction was at once begun, and the
cornerstone laid May 14, 1887. The University was formally
opened to students October 1, 1891. The idea of the
university, in the words of its founders, 'came directly and
largely from our son and only child, Leland, and in the belief
that had he been spared to advise as to the disposition of our
estate, he would have desired the devotion of a large portion
thereof to this purpose, we will that for all time to come the
institution hereby founded shall bear his name, and shall be
known as The Leland Stanford Junior University.' The object of
the University, as stated in its Charter, is 'to qualify
students for personal success and direct usefulness in life';
and its purposes, 'to promote the public welfare by exercising
an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching
the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating
love and reverence for the great principles of government as
derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.' The University is located on
the Palo Alto estate in the Santa Clara valley, thirty-three
miles southeast of San Francisco, on the Coast Division of the
Southern Pacific Railway. The estate consists of over eight
thousand acres, partly lowland and partly rising into the
foothills of the Santa Cruz range. On the grounds is the
residence of the Founders, and an extensive and beautiful
arboretum containing a very great variety of shrubs and trees.
The property conveyed to the University, in addition to the
Palo Alto estate, consists of the Vina estate, in Tehama
County, of fifty-five thousand acres, of which about four
thousand acres are planted in vines, and the Gridley estate,
in Butte County, of twenty-two thousand acres, devoted mainly
to the raising of wheat. ... The founders of the Leland
Stanford Junior University say: 'As a further assurance that
the endowment will be ample to establish and maintain a
university of the highest grade, we have, by last will and
testament, devised to you and your successors additional
property. We have done this as a security against the
uncertainty of life and in the hope that during our lives the
full endowment may go to you. The aggregate of the domain
thus dedicated to the founding of the University, is over
eighty-five thousand acres, or more than one hundred and
thirty-three square miles, among the best improved and most
valuable lands in the State."
Leland Stanford Junior University,
Circulars of Information, numbers 6 and 1-2.
{738}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1889.
Massachusetts.
Clark University.
"Clark University was founded [at Worcester] by ... a native
of Worcester County, Massachusetts. It was 'not the outcome of
a freak of impulse, or of a sudden wave of generosity, or of
the natural desire to perpetuate in a worthy way one's
ancestral name. To comprehend the genesis of the enterprise we
must go back along the track of Mr. Clark's personal history
20 years at least. For as long ago as that, the idea came home
with force to his mind that all civilized communities are in
the hands of experts. ... Looking around at the facilities
obtainable in this country for the prosecution of original
research, he was struck with the meagerness and the
inadequacy. Colleges and professional schools we have in
abundance, but there appeared to be no one grand inclusive
institution, unsaddled by an academic department, where
students might pursue as far as possible their investigation
of any and every branch of science. ... Mr. Clark went abroad
and spent eight years visiting the institutions of learning in
almost every country of Europe. He studied into their history
and observed their present working.' ... It is his strong and
expressed desire that the highest possible academic standards
be here forever maintained; that special opportunities and
inducements be offered to research; that to this end the
instructors be not overburdened with teaching or examinations.
... A charter was granted early in 1887. Land and other
property that had been before secured by the founder was
transferred to the board, and the erection of a central
building was begun. In the spring of 1888 G. Stanley Hall,
then a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, was invited
to the presidency. ... The plans of the university had so far
progressed that work was begun in October, 1889, in
mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology."
G. G. Bush, History of Higher Education in
Massachusetts (U. S. Bureau of Education,
Circular of Information, 1891, no. 6), chapter 18.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1889-1892.
Illinois.
Chicago University.
"At its Annual Meeting in May, 1889, the Board of the American
Baptist Education Society resolved to take immediate steps
toward the founding of a well-equipped college in the city of
Chicago. At the same time John D. Rockefeller made a
subscription of $600,000 and this sum was increased during the
succeeding year by about $600,000 more in subscriptions
representing more than two thousand persons. Three months
after the completion of this subscription, Mr. Rockefeller
made an additional proffer of $1,000,000. The site of the
University consists of three blocks of ground--about two
thousand feet long and three hundred and sixty-two feet wide,
lying between the two South Parks of Chicago, and fronting on
the Midway Plaisance, which is itself a park connecting the
other two. One-half of this site is a gift of Marshall Field
of Chicago, and the other half has been purchased at a cost of
$132,500. At the first meeting of the Board after it had
become an incorporated body, Professor William R. Harper, of
Yale University, was unanimously elected President of the
University. ... It has been decided that the University will
begin the work of instruction on the first day of October,
1892. ... The work of the University shall be arranged under
three general divisions, viz., The University Proper, The
University-Extension Work, The University Publication Work."
University of Chicago,
Official Bulletin no. 1, January, 1891.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1890.
United States.
Census Statistics.
The following statistics of education in the United States are
from the returns gathered for the Eleventh Census, 1890. In
these statistics the states and territories are classed in
five great geographical divisions, defined as follows: North
Atlantic Division, embracing the New England States, New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; South Atlantic Division,
embracing the States of the eastern coast, from Delaware to
Florida, together with the District of Columbia; North Central
Division, embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Dakota,
Nebraska, and Kansas; South Central Division, embracing
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
Arkansas, and Oklahoma; Western Division, embracing all the
remaining States and Territories. The total taxation for
public schools in the United States, as reported by this
census, was $102,164,796; of which $37,619,786 was raised in
the North Atlantic Division, $5,678,474 in the South Atlantic
Division, $47,033,142 in the North Central Division,
$5,698.562 in the South Central Division, and $6,134,832 in
the Western Division. From funds and rents there were raised
for school purposes a total of $25,694,449 in the United
States at large, of which $8,273,147 was raised in the North
Atlantic Division, $2,307,051 in the South Atlantic Division,
$8,432,593 in the North Central Division, $3,720,158 in the
South Central Division, and $2,961,500 in the Western
Division. The total of all "ordinary" receipts for school
support in the United States, was $139,619,440, of which
$49,201,216 were in the North Atlantic Division, $8,685,223 in
the South Atlantic Division. $61,108,263 in the North Central
Division, $10,294,621 in the South Central Division, and
$10,330,117 in the Western Division. The total "ordinary
expenditures" were $138,786,393 in the whole United States;
being $47,625,548 in the North Atlantic Division, $8,630,711
in the South Atlantic Division, $62,815.531 in the North
Central Division, $9,860,050 in the South Central Division,
and $9,854,544 in the Western Division. For teachers' wages
there was a total expenditure of $88,705,992, $28,067,821
being in the North Atlantic Division, $6,400,063 in the South
Atlantic Division, $39,866,831 in the North Central Division,
$8,209,509 in the South Central Division, and $6,161,768 in
the Western Division. The total expenditure for Libraries and
Apparatus was $1,667,787, three-fourths of which was in the
North Atlantic and North Central Divisions. The expenditure
reported for construction and care of buildings, was
$24,224,793, of which $10,687,114 was in the North Atlantic
Division, $884,277 was in the South Atlantic Division,
$9,869,489 in the North Central Division, $770,257 in the
South Central Division, and $2,013,656 in the Western
Division. Reported estimates of the value of buildings and
other school property are incomplete, but $27,892,831 are
given for Massachusetts, $41,626,735 for New York, $35,435,412
for Pennsylvania, $32,631,549 for Ohio, $26,814,480 for
Illinois, and these are the States that stand highest in the
column.
{739}
The apparent enrollment in Public Schools for the
census year, reported to July, 1891, was as follows:
North Atlantic Division, 3,124,417;
South Atlantic Division, 1,758,285;
North Central Division, 5,032,182;
South Central Division, 2,334,694;
Western Division, 520,286;
Total for the United States, 12,769,864
being 20.39 per cent. of the population, against 19.84 per
cent. in 1880. The reported enrollment in Private Schools at
the same time was:
North Atlantic Division, 196,173;
South Atlantic Division, 165,253;
North Central Division, 187,827;
South Central Division, 200,202;
Western Division, 54,749;
Total for the United States, 804,204.
The reported enrollment in Parochial Schools was:
North Atlantic Division, 311,684;
South Atlantic Division, 30,869;
North Central Division, 398,585;
South Central Division, 41,115;
Western Division, 17,349;
Total for the United States, 799,602.
Of this total, 626,496 were enrolled in Catholic and 151,651
in Lutheran Parochial Schools; leaving only 21,455 in the
schools of all other denominations. Total enrollment reported
in all schools 14,373,670. The colored public school
enrollment in the Southern States was 1,288,229 in 1890,
against 797,286 in 1880,--an increase of more than 61 per
cent. The enrollment of whites was 3,358,527, against
2,301,804,--an increase of nearly 46 per cent. The approximate
number of Public School-houses in the United States, for the
census year 1890 is given at 219,992, being 42,949 in the
North Atlantic Division, 32,142 in the South Atlantic
Division, 97,166 in the North Central Division, 38,962 in the
South Central Division, 8,773 in the Western Division. The
largest number reported is 14,214 in Pennsylvania. Of 6,408
school-houses in Virginia 4,568 are for white, and 1,840 for
colored children; in North Carolina, 3,973 white and 1,820
colored. The above statistics are taken in part from the
Compendium of the Eleventh Census, published in 1894, and
partly from tables courteously furnished from the Census
Bureau in advance of their publication.
EDUCATION: Modern: Reforms and Movements.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1638-1671.
Comenius.
"To know Comenius [born in Moravia, 1592] and the part he
played in the seventeenth century, to appreciate this grand
educational character, it would be necessary to begin by
relating his life; his misfortunes; his journeys to England
[1638], where Parliament invoked his aid; to Sweden [1642],
where the Chancellor Oxenstiern employed him to write manuals
of instruction; especially his relentless industry, his
courage through exile, and the long persecutions he suffered
as a member of the sect of dissenters, the Moravian Brethren;
and the schools he founded at Fulneck, in Bohemia, at Lissa
and at Patak, in Poland."
G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy, chapter 6 (section 137).
"Comenius's inspiring motive, like that of all leading
educationalists, was social regeneration. He believed that
this could be accomplished through the school. He lived under
the hallucination that by a proper arrangement of the
subject-matter of instruction, and by a sound method, a
certain community of thought and interests would be
established among the young, which would result in social
harmony and political settlement. He believed that men could
be manufactured. ... The educational spirit of the Reformers,
the conviction that all--even the humblest--must be taught to
know God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, was inherited by
Comenius in its completeness. In this way, and in this way
only, could the ills of Europe be remedied, and the progress
of humanity assured. While, therefore, he sums up the
educational aim under the threefold heads of Knowledge,
Virtue, and Piety or Godliness, he in truth has mainly in view
the last two. Knowledge is of value only in so far as it forms
the only sound basis, in the eyes of a Protestant theologian,
of virtue and godliness. We have to train for a hereafter. ...
By knowledge Comenius meant knowledge of nature and of man's
relation to nature. It is this important characteristic of
Comenius's educational system that reveals the direct
influence of Bacon and his school. ... It is in the department
of Method, however, that we recognise the chief contribution
of Comenius to education. The mere attempt to systematise was
a great advance. In seeking, however, for foundations on which
to erect a coherent system, he had to content himself with
first principles which were vague and unscientific. ... In the
department of knowledge, that is to say, knowledge of the
outer world, Comenius rested his method on the scholastic
maxim, 'Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in
sensu.' This maxim he enriched with the Baconian induction,
comprehended by him only in a general way. ... From the simple
to the complex, from the particular to the general, the concrete
before the abstract, and all, step by step, and even by
insensible degrees,--these were among his leading principles
of method. But the most important of all his principles was
derived from the scholastic maxim quoted above. As all is from
sense, let the thing to be known be itself presented to the
senses, and let every sense be engaged in the perception of
it. When it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to
present the object itself, place a vivid picture of it before
the pupil. The mere enumeration of these few principles, even
if we drop out of view all his other contributions to method
and school-management, will satisfy any man familiar with all
the more recent treatises on Education, that Comenius, even
after giving his precursors their due, is to be regarded as
the true founder of modern Method, and that he anticipates
Pestalozzi and all of the same school. ... Finally, Comenius's
views as to the inner organisation of a school were original,
and have proved themselves in all essential respects correct.
The same may be said of his scheme for the organisation of a
State-system--a scheme which is substantially, mutatis
mutandis, at this moment embodied in the highly-developed
system of Germany. When we consider, then, that Comenius first
formally and fully developed educational method, that he
introduced important reforms into the teaching of languages,
that he introduced into schools the study of Nature, that he
advocated with intelligence, and not on purely sentimental
grounds, a milder discipline, we are justified in assigning to
him a high, if not the highest, place among modern educational
writers."
S. S. Laurie, John Amos Comenius, pages 217-226.
{740}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1681-1878.
The Christian Brothers.
"Any description of popular education in Europe would be
incomplete, which should not give prominence to the Institute
of the Christian Brothers--or the Brothers of the Christian
Doctrine--including in that term the earliest professional
school for the training of teachers in Europe; one of the most
remarkable body of teachers devoted exclusively and without
pay to the education of the children of the poor that the
world has ever seen. ... The Institute was established as a
professional school in 1681, and to Abbe John Baptist de la
Salle, belongs the high honor not only of founding it, but of
so infusing into its early organization his own profound
conviction of the Christ-like character of its mission among
the poor, that it has retained for nearly two centuries the
form and spirit of its origin. This devoted Christian teacher
was born at Rheims on the 30th of April, 1651. ... He was
early distinguished for his scholarly attainments and maturity
of character; and at the age of seventeen, before he had
completed his full course of theological study, he was
appointed Canon in the Cathedral church of Rheims. From the
first, he became interested in the education of the young, and
especially of the poor, as the most direct way of leading them
to a Christian life;--and with this view before he was
twenty-one years old, he assumed the direction of two
charities, devoted to female education. From watching the
operation of these schools, conducted by teachers without
professional training, without plan and without mutual
sympathy and aid, he conceived the design of bringing the
teachers of this class of schools from the neighboring
parishes into a community for their moral and professional
improvement. For this purpose, he invited them first to meet,
and then to lodge at his house, and afterwards, about the year
1681, he purchased a house for their special accommodation.
Here, out of school hours and during their holy days, they
spent their time in the practice of religious duties, and in
mutual conferences on the work in which they were engaged.
About this period, a large number of free schools for the poor
were established in the neighboring towns; and applications
were constantly made to the Abbe for teachers formed under his
training, care, and influence. To meet this demand, and make
himself more directly useful in the field of Christian
education, he resigned his benefice, that he might give his
whole attention to the work. To close the distance between
himself, having a high social position and competence from his
father's estate, and the poor schoolmasters to whom he was
constantly preaching an unreserved consecration of themselves
to their vocation--he not only resigned his canonry, with its
social and pecuniary advantages, but distributed his
patrimony, in a period of scarcity, in relieving the
necessities of the poor, and in providing for the education of
their children. He thus placed himself on a footing of
equality--as to occupation, manner of life, and entire
dependence on the charity of others--with the schoolmasters of
the poor. The annals of education or religion show but few
such examples of practical self-denial, and entire
consecration to a sense of duty. ... Having completed his act
of resignation and self-imposed poverty, he assembled his
teachers, announced to them what he had done, and sung with
them a Te Deum. After a retreat--a period set apart to prayer
and fasting-continued for seventeen days, they devoted
themselves to the consideration of the best course to give
unity, efficiency, and permanence to their plans of Christian
education for the poor. They assumed the name of 'The Brothers
of the Christian Doctrine,' as expressive of their
vocation--which by usage came to be abbreviated into
'Christian Brothers.' They took on themselves vows of poverty,
celibacy, and obedience for three years. They prescribed to
themselves the most frugal fare, to be provided in turns by
each other, They adopted at that time some rules of behavior,
which have since been incorporated into the fundamental rules
of the order. ... In 1702 the first step was taken to
establish an Institute at Rome, under the mission of one of
the brothers, Gabriel Drolin, who after years of poverty, was
made conductor of one of the charitable schools founded by
Pope Clement XI. This school became afterwards the foundation
of the house which the brothers have had in Rome since the
pontificate of Benedict XIII., who conferred on the institute
the constitution of a religious order. In 1703, under the
pecuniary aid of M. Chateau Blanc, and the countenance of the
archbishop, M. de Gontery, a school was opened at Avignon. ...
In 1789, the National Assembly prohibited vows to be made in
communities; and in 1790, suppressed all religious societies;
and in 1791, the institute was dispersed. At that date there
were one hundred and twenty houses, and over one thousand
brothers, actively engaged in the duties of the school room.
The continuity of the society was secured by the houses
established in Italy, to which many of the brothers fled. ...
In 1801, on the conclusion of a Concordat between the Pope and
the government, the society was revived in France by the
opening of a school at Lyons; and in 1815, they resumed their
habit, and opened a novitiate, the members of which were
exempt from military service. At the organization of the
university in 1808, the institute was legally reorganized, and
from that time has increased in numbers and usefulness. ... In
1842, there were 390 houses (of which 326 were in France),
with 3,030 brothers, and 585 novices. There were 642 schools
with 163,700 children, besides evening schools with 7,800
adults in attendance, and three reformatory schools with 2,000
convicts under instruction."
Henry Barnard, National Education in Europe, pages 435-441.
"In 1878 their numbers had increased to 11,640; they had 1,249
establishments, and the number of their scholars was 390,607."
Mrs. R. F. Wilson, The Christian Brothers,
their Origin and Work, chapter 21.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1762.
Rousseau.
"Rousseau, who had educated himself, and very badly at that,
was impressed with the dangers of the education of his day. A
mother having asked his advice, he took up the pen to write
it; and, little by little, his counsels grew into a book, a
large work, a pedagogic romance ['Emile']. This romance, when
it appeared in 1762, created a great noise and a great
scandal. The Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, saw
in it a dangerous, mischievous work, and gave himself the
trouble of writing a long encyclical letter in order to point
out the book to the reprobation of the faithful. This document
of twenty-seven chapters is a formal refutation of the
theories advanced in 'Emile.' ... In those days, such a
condemnation was a serious matter; its consequences to an
author might be terrible. Rousseau had barely time to flee.
His arrest was decreed by the parliament of Paris, and his
book was burned by the executioner. ... As a fugitive,
Rousseau did not find a safe retreat even in his own country.
{741}
He was obliged to leave Geneva, where his book was also
condemned, and Berne, where he had sought refuge, but whence
he was driven by intolerance. He owed it to the protection of
Lord Keith, governor of Neufchâtel, a principality belonging
to the King of Prussia, that he lived for some time in peace
in the little town of Motiers in the Val de Travers. ... The
renown of the book, condemned by so high an authority, was
immense. Scandal, by attracting public attention to it, did it
good service. What was most serious and most suggestive in it
was not, perhaps, seized upon; but the 'craze' of which it was
the object had, notwithstanding, good results. Mothers were
won over, and resolved to nurse their own infants; great lords
began to learn handicrafts, like Rousseau's imaginary pupil;
physical exercises came into fashion; the spirit of innovation
was forcing itself a way. ... Three men above all the rest are
noted for having popularized the pedagogic method of Rousseau,
and for having been inspired in their labors by 'Emile.' These
were Basedow, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Basedow, a German
theologian, had devoted himself entirely to dogmatic
controversy, until the reading of 'Emile' had the effect of
enlarging his mental horizon, and of revealing to him his true
vocation. ... Pestalozzi of Zurich, one of the foremost
educators of modern times, also found his whole life
transformed by the reading of 'Emile,' which awoke in him the
genius of a reformer. ... The most distinguished among his
disciples and continuators is Froebel, the founder of those
primary schools ... known by the name of 'kindergartens,' and
the author of highly esteemed pedagogic works. These various
attempts, these new and ingenious processes which, step by
step, have made their way among us, and are beginning to make
their workings felt, even in institutions most stoutly opposed
to progress, are all traceable to Rousseau's 'Emile.' ... It
is true that 'Emile' contains pages that have outlived their
day, many odd precepts, many false ideas, many disputable and
destructive theories; but at the same time we find in it so
many sagacious observations, such upright counsels, suitable
even to modern times, so lofty an ideal, that, in spite of
everything, we cannot read and study it without profit. ...
There is absolutely nothing practicable in his [Rousseau's]
system. It consists in isolating a child from the rest of the
world; in creating expressly for him a tutor, who is a phœnix
among his kind; in depriving him of father, mother, brothers,
and sisters, his companions in study; in surrounding him with
a perpetual charlatanism, under the pretext of following
nature; and in showing him only through the veil of a
factitious atmosphere the society in which he is to live. And,
nevertheless, at each step it is sound reason by which we are
met; by an astonishing paradox, this whimsicality is full of
good sense; this dream overflows with realities; this
improbable and chimerical romance contains the substance and
the marrow of a rational and truly modern treatise on
pedagogy. Sometimes we must read between the lines, add what
experience has taught us since that day, transpose into an
atmosphere of open democracy those pages, written under the
old order of things, but even then quivering with the new
world which they were bringing to light, and for which they
prepared the way. Reading 'Emile' in the light of modern
prejudices, we can see in it more than the author wittingly
put into it; but not more than logic and the instinct of
genius set down there. To unfold the powers of children in due
proportion to their age; not to transcend their ability; to
arouse in them the sense of the observer and of the pioneer;
to make them discoverers rather than imitators: to teach them
accountability to themselves and not slavish dependence upon
the words of others; to address ourselves more to the will
than to custom, to the reason rather than to the memory; to
substitute for verbal recitations lessons about things; to
lead to theory by way of art; to assign to physical movements
and exercises a prominent place, from the earliest hours of
life up to perfect maturity; such are the principles scattered
broadcast in this book, and forming a happy counterpoise to
the oddities of which Rousseau was perhaps most proud."
J. Steeg, Introduction to Rousseau's 'Emile.'
EDUCATION: A. D. 1798-1827.
Pestalozzi.
In Switzerland, up to the end of the eighteenth century, the
state of primary instruction was very bad. "The teachers were
gathered up at hazard; their pay was wretched; in general they
had no lodgings of their own, and they were obliged to hire
themselves out for domestic service among the well-off
inhabitants of the villages, in order to find food and lodging
among them. A mean spirit of caste still dominated
instruction, and the poor remained sunk in ignorance. It was
in the very midst of this wretched and unpropitious state of
affairs that there appeared, towards the end of the eighteenth
century, the most celebrated of modern educators. ... Born at
Zurich in 1746, Pestalozzi died at Brugg in Argovia in 1827.
This unfortunate great man always felt the effects of the
sentimental and unpractical education given him by his mother,
who was left a widow with three children in 1751. He early
formed the habit of feeling and of being touched with emotion,
rather than of reasoning and of reflecting. The laughing-stock
of his companions, who made sport of his awkwardness, the
little scholar of Zurich accustomed himself to live alone and
to become a dreamer. Later, towards 1760, the student of the
academy distinguished himself by his political enthusiasm and
his revolutionary daring. At that early period he had
conceived a profound feeling for the miseries and the needs of
the people, and he already proposed as the purpose of his life
the healing of the diseases of society. At the same time there
was developed in him an irresistible taste for a simple,
frugal, and almost ascetic life. To restrain his desires had
become the essential rule of his conduct, and, to put it in
practice, he forced himself to sleep on a plank, and to
subsist on bread and vegetables."
G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy, chapter 18.
"In spite ... of Pestalozzi's patent disqualifications in many
respects for the task he undertook; in spite of his ignorance
of even common subjects (for he spoke, read, wrote, and
cyphered badly, and knew next to nothing of classics or
science); in spite of his want of worldly wisdom, of any
comprehensive and exact knowledge of men and of things; in
spite of his being merely an elementary teacher,--through the
force of his all-conquering love, the nobility of his heart,
the resistless energy of his enthusiasm, his firm grasp of a
few first principles, his eloquent exposition of them in
words, his resolute manifestation of them in deeds,--he stands
forth among educational reformers as the man whose influence
on education is wider, deeper, more penetrating, than that of
all the rest--the prophet and the sovereign of the domain in
which he lived and laboured. ...
{742}
It was late in life--he was fifty-two years of age--before
Pestalozzi became a practical school-master. He had even begun
to despair of ever finding the career in which he might
attempt to realize the theories over which his loving heart
and teeming brain had been brooding from his earliest youth.
... At fifty-two years of age, then, we find Pestalozzi
utterly unacquainted with the science and the art of
education, and very scantily furnished even with elementary
knowledge, undertaking at Stanz, in the canton of Unterwalden,
the charge of eighty children, whom the events of war had
rendered homeless and destitute. ... The house in which the
eighty children were assembled to be boarded, lodged, and
taught, was an old tumble-down Ursuline convent, scarcely
habitable, and destitute of all the conveniences of life. The
only apartment suitable for a schoolroom was about twenty-four
feet square, furnished with a few desks and forms; and into
this were crowded the wretched children, noisy, dirty,
diseased, and ignorant, with the manners and habits of
barbarians. Pestalozzi's only helper in the management of the
institution was an old woman, who cooked the food and swept
the rooms; so that he was, as he tells us himself, not only
the teacher, but the paymaster, man-servant, and almost the
housemaid of the children. ... 'My wishes [he writes] were now
accomplished. I felt convinced that my heart would change the
condition of my children as speedily as the springtide sun
reanimates the earth frozen by the winter. Nor,' he adds, 'was
I mistaken. Before the springtide sun melted away the snow
from our mountains, you could no longer recognise the same
children.' ... 'I was obliged,' he says, 'unceasingly to be
everything to my children. I was alone with them from morning
to night. It was from my hand they received whatever could be
of service both to their bodies and minds. All succour, all
consolation, all instruction came to them immediately from
myself. Their hands were in my hand; my eyes were fixed on
theirs, my tears mingled with theirs, my smiles encountered
theirs, my soup was their soup, my drink was their drink. I
had around me neither family, friends, nor servants; I had
only them. I was with them when they were in health, by their
side when they were ill. I slept in their midst. I was the
last to go to bed, the first to rise in the morning. When we
were in bed I used to pray with them and talk to them till
they went to sleep. They wished me to do so.' ... 'I knew,' he
says, 'no system, no method, no art but that which rested on
the simple consequences of the firm belief of the children in
my love towards them. I wished to know no other.' ...
Gradually ... Pestalozzi advanced to the main principles of
his system of moral education. ... He says:--'Nature develops
all the human faculties by practice, and their growth depends
on their exercise.' 'The circle of knowledge commences close
around a man, and thence extends concentrically.' 'Force not
the faculties of children into the remote paths of knowledge,
until they have gained strength by exercise on things that are
near them.' 'There is in Nature an order and march of
development. If you disturb or interfere with it, you mar the
peace and harmony of the mind. And this you do, if, before you
have formed the mind by the progressive knowledge of the
realities of life, you fling it into the labyrinth of words,
and make them the basis of development.' 'The artificial march
of the ordinary school, anticipating the order of Nature,
which proceeds without anxiety and without haste, inverts this
order by placing words first, and thus secures a deceitful
appearance of success at the expense of natural and safe
development.' In these few sentences we recognise all that is
most characteristic in the educational principles of
Pestalozzi. ... To set the intellectual machinery in
motion--to make it work, and keep it working; that was the
sole object at which he aimed; of all the rest he took little
account. ... He relied upon a principle which must be insisted
on as cardinal and essential in education. He secured the
thorough interest of his pupils in the lesson, and mainly
through their own direct share in it. ... Observation, ...
according to Pestalozzi (and Bacon had said the same thing
before him), is the absolute basis of all knowledge, and is
therefore the prime agent in elementary education. It is
around this theory, as a centre of gravity, that Pestalozzi's
system revolves."
J. Payne, Lectures on the History of Education,
lecture. 9.
"During the short period, not more than a year, which
Pestalozzi spent among the children at Stanz, he settled the
main features of the Pestalozzian system. Sickness broke out
among the children, and the wear and tear was too great even
for Pestalozzi. He would probably have sunk under his efforts
if the French, pressed by the Austrians, had not entered
Stanz, in January, 1799, and taken part of the Ursuline
Convent for a military hospital. Pestalozzi was, therefore,
obliged to break up the school, and he himself went to a
medicinal spring on the Gurnigel in the Canton Bern. ... He
came down from the Gurnigel, and began to teach in the primary
schools (i. e., schools for children from four to eight years
old) of Burgdorf, the second town in the Canton. Here the
director was jealous of him, and he met with much opposition.
... In less than a year Pestalozzi left this school in bad
health, and joined Krüsi in opening a new school in Burgdorf
Castle, for which he afterward (1802) obtained Government aid.
Here he was assisted in carrying out his system by Krüsi,
Tobler, and Bluss. He now embodied the results of his
experience in a work which has obtained great celebrity--'How
Gertrude Teaches her Children' [also published in England
under the title of 'Leonard and Gertrude]. In 1802 Pestalozzi,
for once in his life a successful and popular man, was elected
a member of a deputation sent by the Swiss people to Paris. On
the restoration of the Cantons in 1804. the Castle of Burgdorf
was again occupied by one of the chief magistrates, and
Pestalozzi and his establishment were moved to the Monastery
of Buchsee. Here the teachers gave the principal direction to
another, the since celebrated Fellenburg, 'not without my
consent,' says Pestalozzi, 'but to my profound mortification.'
He therefore soon accepted an invitation from the inhabitants
of Yverdun to open an institution there, and within a
twelvemonth he was followed by his old assistants, who had
found government by Fellenburg less to their taste than
no-government by Pestalozzi.
{743}
The Yverdun Institute had soon a world-wide reputation.
Pestalozzian teachers went from it to Madrid, to Naples, to
St. Petersburg. Kings and philosophers joined in doing it
honor. But, as Pestalozzi himself has testified, these praises
were but as a laurel-wreath encircling a skull. The life of
the Pestalozzian institutions had been the love which the old
man had infused into all the members, teachers as well as
children; but this life was wanting at Yverdun. The
establishment was much too large to be carried on successfully
without more method and discipline than Pestalozzi,
remarkable, as he himself says, for his 'unrivalled incapacity
to govern,' was master of. The assistants began each to take
his own line, and even the outward show of unity was soon at
an end. ... Thus the sun went down in clouds, and the old man,
when he died at the age of eighty, in 1827, had seen the
apparent failure of all his toils. He had not, however, failed
in reality. It has been said of him that his true fortune was
to educate ideas, not children, and when twenty years later
the centenary of his birth was celebrated by school-masters,
not only in his native country, but throughout Germany, it was
found that Pestalozzian ideas had been sown, and were bearing
fruit, over the greater part of central Europe."
R. H. Quick, Essays on Educational Reformers, chapter 8.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1891.
Co-education and the Higher Education of
Women in the United States.
"When to a few daring minds the conviction came that education
was a right of personality rather than of sex, and when there
was added to this growing sentiment the pressing demand for
educated women as teachers and as leaders in philanthropy, the
simplest means of equipping women with the needful preparation
was found in the existing schools and colleges. ... In nearly
every State west of the Alleghanies, 'Universities' had been
founded by the voluntary tax of the whole population.
Connected with all the more powerful religious denominations
were schools and colleges which called upon their adherents
for gifts and students. These democratic institutions had the
vigor of youth, and were ambitious and struggling. 'Why,'
asked the practical men of affairs who controlled them,
'should not our daughters go on with our sons from the public
schools to the university which we are sacrificing to equip
and maintain?' It is not strange that with this and much more
practical reasoning of a similar kind, co-education was
established in some colleges at their beginning, in others
after debate, and by a radical change in policy. When once the
chivalrous desire was aroused to give girls as good an
education as their brothers, Western men carried out the
principle unflinchingly. From the kindergarten to the
preparation for the doctorate of philosophy, educational
opportunities are now practically alike for men and women. The
total number of colleges of arts and sciences empowered by law
to give degrees, reporting to Washington in 1888, was three
hundred and eighty-nine. Of these, two hundred and
thirty-seven, or nearly two-thirds, were co-educational. Among
them are nearly all the State universities, and nearly all the
colleges under the patronage of the Protestant sects. Hitherto
I have spoken as if co-education were a Western movement; and
in the West it certainly has had greater currency than
elsewhere. But it originated, at least so far as concerns
superior secondary training, in Massachusetts. Bradford
Academy, chartered in 1804, is the oldest incorporated
institution in the country to which boys and girls were from
the first admitted; but it closed its department for boys in
1836, three years after the foundation of co-educational
Oberlin, and in the very year when Mount Holyoke was opened by
Mary Lyon, in the large hope of doing for young women what
Harvard had been founded to do for young men just two hundred
years before. Ipswich and Abbot Academies in Massachusetts had
already been chartered to educate girls alone. It has been the
dominant sentiment in the East that boys and girls should be
educated separately. The older, more generously endowed, more
conservative seats of learning, inheriting the complications
of the dormitory system, have remained closed to women. ... In
the short period of the twenty years after the war the four
women's colleges which are the richest in endowments and
students of any in the world were founded and set in motion.
These colleges--Vassar, opened in 1865, Wellesley and Smith in
1875, and Bryn Mawr in 1885--have received in gifts of every
kind about $6,000,000, and are educating nearly two thousand
students. For the whole country the Commissioner of Education
reports two hundred and seven institutions for the superior
instruction of women, with more than twenty-five, thousand
students. But these resources proved inadequate. There came an
increasing demand, especially from teachers, for education of
all sorts. ... In an attempt to meet a demand of this sort the
Harvard Annex began twelve years ago [in 1879] to provide a
few women with instruction from members of the Harvard
faculty. ... Barnard College in New York is an annex of
Columbia only in a sense, for not all her instruction is given
by Columbia's teaching force, though Columbia will confer
degrees upon her graduates. The new woman's college at
Cleveland sustains temporarily the same relations to, Adelbert
College, though to a still greater extent she provides
independent instruction."
A. F. Palmer, Review of the Higher Education of Women
(Woman and the Higher Education, pages 105-127).
"The Cleveland College for Women, Cleveland, Ohio, was first
opened for instruction in 1888 as a department of Western
Reserve University. At the same time the trustees of the
university decided to receive no more women into Adelbert
College. That the success of the new school might be assured,
the faculty of Adelbert College generously offered their
services for a term of years as instructors. During the first
year twenty-three young women were admitted, but two of whom
were in the regular courses. During 1889-90 the number of
students increased to thirty-eight. ... In 1887 Evelyn
College, an institution for women, was opened at Princeton, N.
J. Its location at this place gives the institution very great
advantages, inasmuch as the use of the libraries and museums
of the College of New Jersey, popularly known as Princeton
College, are granted to the students."
U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report,
1889-90, volume 2, page 744.
{744}
"The latest report of the United States Commissioner of
Education contains over two hundred institutions for the
superior education of women. The list includes colleges and
seminaries entitled to confer degrees, and a few seminaries,
whose work is of equal merit, which do not give degrees. Of
these more than two hundred institutions for the education of
women exclusively, only 47 are situated within [western
states]. ... Of these 47, but 30 are chartered with authority
to confer degrees. ... The extent to which the higher
education of women is in the West identified with
co-education, can be seen by comparing the two statements
above given. Of the total 212 higher institutions receiving
women, and of the total 195 such institutions which confer the
regular degrees in arts, science, and letters, upon their
graduates, 165 are co-educational. ... Among colleges
characterized from birth by a liberal and progressive spirit
may be mentioned 'The Cincinnati Wesleyan Woman's College.'
This institution was chartered in 1842, and claims to be 'the
first liberal collegiate institution in the world for the
exclusive education of women.' ... The West is committed to
co-education, excepting only the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran,
and the Protestant Episcopal sects,--which are not yet, as
sects, committed to the collegiate education of women at
all,--and the Presbyterian sect, whose support, in the West,
of 14 co-educational colleges against 4 for the separate
education of young men, almost commits it to the
co-educational idea. ... In 1853, Antioch College was opened
at Yellow Springs, Ohio. It was the first endeavor in the West
to found a college under Christian but non-sectarian auspices.
Its president, Horace Mann, wrote of it: 'Antioch is now the
only first-class college in all the West that is really an
unsectarian institution.' ... Antioch was from the first
avowedly co-educational."
M. W. Sewall, Education of Women in the Western
States (Woman's Work in America, pages 61-70).
"Most people would probably be ready to say that except for
the newly founded Woman's College in Baltimore and Tulane
University [State university of Louisiana], the collegiate
education of women does not exist in the South. But as matter
of fact, there are no less than one hundred and fifty
institutions in the South which are authorized by the
Legislatures of their respective States to confer the regular
college degrees upon women. Of these, forty-one are
co-educational, eighty-eight are for women alone, and
twenty-one are for colored persons of both sexes. The bureau
of education makes no attempt to go behind the verdict of the
State Legislatures, but on looking over the catalogues of all
these institutions it is, as might have been expected, easy to
see that the great majority of them are not in any degree
colleges, in the ordinary sense of the word. Not a single one
of the so-called female colleges presents a real college
course, and many of the co-educational colleges are colleges
only in name."
C. L. Franklin, Education of Women in the Southern
States (Woman's Work in America, pages 93-94).
EDUCATION: A. D. 1816-1892,
Froebel and the Kindergarten.
"Frœbel (Friedrich Wilhelm August) was born April 21, 1782, at
Oberweissbach, in the principality of Schwanburg-Rudolstadt.
His mother died when he was so young that he never even
remembered her; and he was left to the care of an ignorant
maid-of-all-work, who simply provided for his bodily wants.
... Not until he was ten years of age did he receive the
slightest regular instruction. He was then sent to school, to
an uncle who lived in the neighborhood, ... He pronounced the
boy to be idle (which, from his point of view, was quite true)
and lazy (which certainly was not true)--a boy, in short, that
you could do nothing with. ... It was necessary for him to
earn his bread, and we next find him a sort of apprentice to a
woodsman in the great Thuringian forest. Here, as he afterward
tells us, he lived some years in cordial intercourse with
nature and mathematics, learning even then, though
unconsciously, from the teaching he received, how to teach
others. ... In 1801 he went to the University of Jena, where
he attended lectures on natural history, physics, and
mathematics; but, as he tells us, gained little from them. ...
This ... was put an end to by the failure of means to stay at
the University. For the next few years he tried various
occupations. ... While engaged in an architect's office at
Frankfort, he formed an acquaintance with the Rector of the
Model School, a man named Gruner. Gruner saw the capabilities
of Frœbel, and detected also his entire want of interest in
the work that he was doing; and one day suddenly said to him:
'Give up your architect's business; you will do nothing at it.
Be a teacher. We want one now in the school; you shall have
the place.' This was the turning point in Frœbel's life. He
accepted the engagement, began work at once, and tells us that
the first time he found himself in the midst of a class of 30
or 40 boys, he felt that he was in the element that he had
missed so long--'the fish was in the water.' He was
inexpressibly happy. ... In a calmer mood he severely
questioned himself as to the means by which he was to satisfy
the demands of his new position. About this time he met with
some of Pestalozzi's writings, which so deeply impressed him
that he determined to go to Yverdun and study Pestalozzi on
the spot. He accomplished his purpose, and lived and worked
for two years with Pestalozzi. His experience at Yverdun
impressed him with the conviction that the science of
education had still to draw out from Pestalozzi's system those
fundamental principles which Pestalozzi himself did not
comprehend. 'And therefore,' says Schmidt, 'this genial
disciple of Pestalozzi supplemented his system by advancing
from the point which Pestalozzi had reached through pressure
from without, to the innermost conception of man, and arriving
at the thought of the true development and culture of
mankind.' ... His educational career commenced November 13th,
1816, in Greisheim, a little village near Stadt-Ilm, in
Thuringia; but in 1817, when his Pestalozzian friend,
Middendorf, joined him ... the school was transferred to the
beautiful village of Keilhau, near Rudolstadt, which may be
considered as his chief starting-place. ... Langenthal,
another Pestalozzian, associated himself with them, and they
commenced building a house. The number of pupils rose to
twelve in 1818. Then the daughter of war-counselor Hoffman of
Berlin, from enthusiasm for Frœbel's educational ideas, became
his wife. She had a considerable dowry, which, together with
the accession of Frœbel's elder brother, increased the funds
and welfare of the school. In 1831 he was invited by the
composer, Schnyder von Wartensee, to erect a similar garden on
his estate, near the lake of Sempach, in the canton Luzern. It
was done. Frœbel changed his residence the next year, from
Keilhau to Switzerland. In,1834 the government of Bern invited
him to arrange a training course for teachers in Burgdorf. In
1835 he became principal of the orphan asylum in Burgdorf, but
in 1836 he and his wife wished to return to Germany. There he
was active in Berlin, Keilhau, Blankenburg, Dresden,
Liebenstein in Thuringia, Hamburg, (1849,) and Marienthal,
near Liebenstein, where he lived until his decease in 1852,
among the young ladies, whom he trained as nurses for the
kindergarten, and the little children who attended his
school."
H. Barnard, editor, Papers on Froebel's Kindergarten:
Memoir.
{745}
"The child thinks only through symbols. In other words, it
explains all it sees not by the recorded experience of others,
as does an adult, but by marshaling and comparing its own
concept or symbol of what it has itself seen. Its sole
activity is play. 'The school begins with teaching the
conventionalities of intelligence. Froebel would have the
younger children receive a symbolic education in plays, games,
and occupations which symbolize the primitive arts of man.'
For this purpose, the child is led through a series of
primitive occupations in plaiting, weaving, and modeling,
through games and dances, which bring into play all the social
relations, and through songs and the simple use of number,
form and language. The 'gifts' all play their manifold
purpose, inspiring the child, awakening its interest, leading
the individual along the path the race has trod, and teaching
social self-control. The system has its palpable dangers. The
better and more intricate the tool, the more skill needed in
its safe use. ... The kindergarten requires trained hands.
With trivial teachers its methods may easily degenerate into
mere amusement, and thwart all tendency to attention,
application, or industry. Valuable as it is in its hints for
the care and development of children, its gay round needs to
be ballasted with the purpose and theory uppermost in
Froebel's mind when he opened his first school in a German
peasant village, down whose main street a brook tumbled, and
through whose lanes the halberdier still walked by night and
sang the hours. It is idle to suppose that Froebel founded a
perfect system, or to insist on all the details of the
professional kindergartner's creed. Here as elsewhere, and
aforetime, it has taken only forty years from the founder's
death for faith to degenerate into religion and sect. But the
central purpose he had in view must be steadily maintained. He
sought his ends through play, and not through work. It is as
dangerous for this method to harden into an approach to the
primary school as it is for it to soften into a riot of
misrule, and lax observance of order. ... Switzerland, then
the only republic in Europe, was the first country to adopt
Froebel's method, though in some Swiss towns the kindergarten
is still supported by private associations. France, another
republic, has more children beginning school under an
adaptation of Froebel than all the rest of the world put
together. It was Froebel's own opinion that 'the spirit of
American nationality was the only one in the world with which
his method was in complete harmony, and to which its
legitimate institutions would present no barriers.' The
figures given below of the growth of the kindergarten in this
country are the best possible proof of the truth of Froebel's
prescient assertion. ... In 1870 there were in this country
only five kindergarten schools, and in 1872 the National
Education Association at its Boston meeting appointed a
committee which reported a year later recommending the system.
Between 1870 and 1873, experimental kindergartens were
established in Boston, Cleveland, and St. Louis, public
attention was enlisted by the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Palmer
Peabody, the most important worker in the early history of the
kindergarten in this country, and the system began a rapid
growth. Taking private and public kindergartens together, the
advance of the system has displayed this most rapid progress:
1875 1880 1885 1891-2
Schools. 95 232 413 1,001
Teachers. 216 524 902 2,242
Pupils. 2,809 8,871 18,780 50,423
Down to 1880, these figures, outside of St. Louis, relate
almost altogether to private schools. By 1885 the public
kindergartens were not over a fifth in number of the schools,
and held not over a fourth of the pupils. In the figures last
given in this table there are 724 private kindergartens with
1,517 teachers and 29,357 pupils, and 277 public kindergartens
with 725 teachers and 21,066 pupils, so that the latter have
now 27 per cent. of the schools, 33 per cent. of the teachers,
and 42 per cent. of the pupils. ... Yet great as is this
advance, the kindergarten as yet plays but an infinitesimal
part in our educational system as a whole. ... Of the sixteen
American cities with a population of over 200,000 in 1890,
only four--Philadelphia, Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis
have incorporated the kindergarten on any large scale in their
public-school systems. Four more--New York, Chicago, Brooklyn,
and Buffalo--have kindergarten associations organized to
introduce the new method as a part of free public education."
T. Williams, The Kindergarten Movement
(The Century, January, 1893).
EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1883.
The Higher Education of Women in England.
The movement in England to secure a higher education for women
dates from 1865. "In that year a Royal Commission was
appointed to inquire into and report on the endowed grammar
schools of England and Wales, and on what is called
'secondary' education generally. Several ladies who were
already alive to the deficiencies in the education of their
own sex, memorialized this Commission to extend the scope of
its inquiry to girls' schools, and the Commission taking what
was then thought quite a bold step, consented to do so. ...
One of the points brought out was the absence of any
institutions doing for women what the universities did for
men, and the consequent difficulty in which women stood of
obtaining the highest kind of education--a difficulty which
told on girls' schools by making it hard for them to procure
thoroughly competent mistresses. This led in the course of the
next year or two--the report of the Commission having been
published in 1868--to the establishment of a college for
women, which was first placed at Hitchin, a town on the Great
Northern Railway, between London and Cambridge, and in a
little while, when money had been collected sufficient for the
erection of buildings, this college was finally settled at
Girton, a spot about two miles from Cambridge, whence it takes
the name of Girton College. Its purpose was to provide for
women the same teaching in the same subjects as men receive in
Cambridge University, and the teachers were nearly all of them
professors or tutors there, men in some cases of high
eminence.
{746}
Meanwhile, in Cambridge itself, a system of day classes for
women, taught by University teachers, had been created, at
first as an experiment for one year only. When several years
had passed, when the number attending had increased, and it
was found that women came to lodge in Cambridge in order to
profit by these lectures, a house was hired in which to
receive them, and ultimately a company was formed and a
building erected a little way out of Cambridge, under the name
of Newnham Hall, to which the lectures, now mainly designed
for these students coming from a distance, were attached.
Thus, at about the same time, though from somewhat different
origins, Girton and Newnham came into being and began their
course of friendly rivalry. Both have greatly developed since
then. Their buildings have been repeatedly enlarged. Their
numbers have risen steadily. ... In Girton the charge for
lodging, board and instruction is £100 per annum, in Newnham a
little less. The life in both is very similar, a lady being
placed at the head as resident principal, while the affairs
are managed by a committee including both men and women. The
lectures are delivered partly by Cambridge men, professors in
the University, or tutors or lecturers in some of the
colleges, partly by ladies, who, having once been students
themselves, have come back as teachers. These lectures cover
all the subjects required in the degree examinations of the
University; and although students are not obliged to enter
themselves for those examinations, they are encouraged to do
so, and do mostly set the examinations before them as their
goal. Originally the University took no official notice of the
women students, and their being examined by the regular degree
examiners of the University was a matter of pure favor on the
part of those gentlemen. ... At last, however, some examiners
came into office (for the examiners are changed every two
years) who disapproved of this informal examination of the
women candidates, and accordingly a proposal was made to the
University that it should formally authorize and impose on the
examiners the function heretofore discharged by them in their
individual capacity. This proposal, after some discussion and
opposition, was carried, so that now women may enter both for
the honor examinations and the pass examinations for the
University degree as a matter of right. Their names do not
appear in the official lists among those of the men, but
separately; they are, however, tested by the same question
papers and judged by the same standard. ... Some Oxford
graduates and their friends, stimulated by the success of
Girton and Newnham, have founded two similar institutions in
Oxford, one of which, Episcopalian and indeed High Church in
its proclivities, is called Lady Margaret Hall, while the
other, in compliment to the late Mrs. Somerville, has been
given the title of Somerville Hall. These establishments are
conducted on much the same lines as the two Cambridge
colleges. ... In the large towns where new colleges have been
lately founded or courses of lectures established, such as
Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, steps are usually taken to
provide lectures for women. ... What is called among you the
question of co-education has come up very little in England.
All the lectures given inside the walls of the four English
colleges I have mentioned are, of course, given to women only,
the colleges being just as exclusively places for women as
Trinity and St. John's are places for men. ... At this moment
the principal of one of the two halls of which Newnham
consists is a daughter of the Prime Minister [Miss Helen
Gladstone], while her predecessor was a niece of the Marquis
of Salisbury. The principal of Girton is a niece of the late
Lord Lawrence, the famous Governor-General of India. Of the
students a fair proportion belong to the wealthy classes,
while a somewhat larger proportion mean to take teaching as
their profession."
Progress of Female Education in England.
(Nation, July 5, 1883).
See, also, above, SCOTLAND.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1886.
Industrial Education in the United States.
"In 1865 John Boynton of Templeton, Mass., gave $100,000 for
the endowment and perpetual support of a Free Institute for
the youth of Worcester County, Mass. He thus explained his
objects: 'The aim of this school shall ever be the instruction
of youth in those branches of education not usually taught in
the public schools, which are essential and best adapted to
train the young for practical life'; especially such as were
intending to be mechanics, or manufacturers, or farmers. In
furtherance of this object, ten months later, in 1866, Ichabod
Washburn of Worcester gave $25,000, and later $50,000 more to
erect, equip, and endow a machine-shop which should
accommodate twenty apprentices and a suitable number of
skilled workmen to instruct them and to carry on the shop as a
commercial establishment. The apprentices were to be taught
the use of tools in working wood and metals, and to be
otherwise instructed, much as was customary fifty years ago
for boys learning a trade. The Worcester Free Institute was
opened for students in November, 1868, as a technical school
of about college grade; and the use of the shops and shop
instruction was limited to those students in the course of
mechanical engineering. Thus did the Worcester School under
the leadership of Prest. C. O. Thompson incorporate
tool-instruction and shop-practice into the training of
mechanical engineers. ... In the same year, 1868, Victor
Della-Vos introduced into the Imperial Technical (engineering)
School at Moscow the Russian method of class-instruction in
the use of tools. ... The great value of the work of Della-Vos
lay in the discovery of the true method of tool-instruction,
for without his discovery the later steps would have been
impossible. In 1870, under the direction of Professor Robinson and
Prest. J. M. Gregory of the University of Illinois, a
wood-working shop was added to the appliances for the course
in architecture, and an iron-working shop to the course in
mechanical engineering in that institution. In 1871, the
Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N. J., munificently endowed by
Edwin A. Stevens, as a school of mechanical engineering,
fitted up a series of shops for the use of its students. The
next step forward was taken by Washington University in St.
Louis in providing for all its engineering students systematic
instruction in both wood and metals. In 1872, a large shop in the
Polytechnic School was equipped with work-benches, two lathes,
a forge, a gear-cutter and full sets of carpenters',
machinists', and forging tools. ...
{747}
Thus far had we progressed when the Philadelphia Exposition of
1876 was opened. None of us knew anything of the Moscow
school, or of the one in Bohemia in which the Russian method
had been adopted in 1874. ... In his report of 1876, Prest. J.
D. Runkle, of the Mass. Institute of Technology, gave a full
exposition of the theory and practice of tool-instruction of
Della-Vos as exhibited at the Philadelphia Exposition, and he
recommended that without delay the course in mechanical
engineering at the Institute be completed by the addition of a
series of Instruction Shops. The suggestion was acted on, and
in the spring of 1877 a class of mechanical engineering
students was given instruction in chipping and filing. ... The
St. Louis Manual Training School was established June 6, 1879.
It embodied hopes long cherished and plans long formed. For
the first time in America the age of admission to school-shops
was reduced to fourteen years as a minimum, and a very general
three-years' course of study was organized. The ordinance by
which the school was established specified its objects in very
general terms:--'Its objects shall be instruction in
mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a
high-school course, and instruction and practice in the use of
tools. The tool-instruction, as at present contemplated, shall
include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron clipping
and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of
machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar
character, its it may be deemed advisable to add to the
foregoing from time to time. The students will divide their
working hours, as nearly as possible, equally between mental
and manual exercises.' ... The Baltimore Manual Training
School, a public school, on the same footing as the high
school, was opened in 1883. The Chicago Manual Training
School, established as an incorporated school by the
Commercial Club of that city, was opened in January, 1884. ...
Manual training was introduced into the high school of Eau
Claire, Wisconsin, in 1884. The 'Scott Manual Training School'
was organized as a part of the high school of Toledo in 1884.
... Manual training was introduced into the College (high
school) of the City of New York in 1884. The Philadelphia
Manual Training School, a public high school, was opened in
September, 1885. The Omaha high school introduced manual
training in 1885. ... Dr. Adler's Workingman's School for poor
children has for several years taught manual training to the
very lowest grades. ... The Cleveland Manual Training School
was incorporated in 1885, and opened in connection with the
city high school, in 1886. New Haven, which had for some time
encouraged the use of tools by the pupils of several of its
grammar schools, in September, 1886, opened a regular shop and
furnished systematic instruction in tool-work. The school
board of Chicago added manual training to the course of the
'West Side High School' in September, 1886."
C. M. Woodward, The Manual Training School, chapter 1.
"Concerning the manual-training school there are two widely
different views. The one insists that it shall teach no trade,
but the rudiments of all of them; the other that the
particular industries may properly be held to maintain schools
to recruit their own ranks. The first would teach the use of
the axe, the saw, the plane, the hammer, the square, the
chisel, and the file; claiming that 'the graduate from such a
course at the end of three years is within from one to three
months of knowing quite as thoroughly as an apprentice who had
served seven years any one of the twenty trades to which he
may choose to turn.' Of this class are, besides most of those
already named, the Haish Manual Training School of Denver;
that of Tulane University, New Orleans; the Felix Adler's
'Workingman's School, of New York City; and the School of
Manual Technology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Among
schools of the second class are some interesting institutions.
They include the numerous general and special trade-schools
for boys, instruction in the manifold phases of domestic
economy for girls, and the yet small but rapidly growing class
of industries open alike to both. Sewing is taught in public
or private schools in Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago,
New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and about a
dozen other cities, besides in a number of special
institutions. Cooking-schools are no longer a novelty in half
as many of the larger cities, since their introduction into
New York city in 1876. Printing may be learned in the Kansas
Agricultural College; Cooper Union, New York; Girard College,
Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Telegraphy, stenography,
wood-engraving, various kinds of smithing, and carpentry,
have, especially the last two, numerous representatives. The
New York Kitchen Garden, for the instruction of children in
the work of the household, is an interesting modification of
the Kindergarten along the industrial line. For young ladies,
the Elizabeth Aull Seminary, Lexington, Missouri, is a school
of home-work, in which 'are practically taught the mysteries
of the kitchen and laundry,' and upon whose graduates is
conferred the degree of 'Mistress of Home-Work.' The Lasell
Seminary at Auburndale, Massachusetts, also has recently
(1885) undertaken a similar but more comprehensive experiment,
including lessons and lectures in anatomy and physiology, with
hygiene and sanitation, the principles of common law by an
eminent attorney, instruction and practice in the arts of
domestic life, the principles of dress, artistic
house-furnishing, healthy homes, and cooking. Of
training-schools for nurses there are thirty-one. ... Of
schools of a different character still, there have been or are
the Carriage Builder's Apprenticeship School, New York; those
of Hoe & Co., printing-press manufacturers; and Tiffany & Co.,
jewelers; and the Tailors' 'Trades School' recently
established and flourishing in Baltimore, besides the
Pennsylvania Railroad novitiate system, at Altoona; in which
particular trades or guilds or corporations have sought to
provide themselves with a distinct and specially trained class
of artisans. The latest and in some respects the most
interesting experiment of the kind is that of the 'Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad service' at Mt. Clare, Baltimore. It was
inaugurated in 1885, apprentices being selected from
applicants by competitive examination."
R. G. Boone, Education in the United States, chapter 13.
{748}
EDUCATION: A. D. 1873-1889.
University Extension in England.
"The University Extension Movement, which has now been before
the country eighteen years, has revealed the existence of a
real need for larger opportunities of higher education amongst
the middle and working classes. From the time of its
inauguration in 1873 by the University of Cambridge, owing
mainly to the enthusiastic advocacy and skill in practical
affairs of Mr. James Stuart (at that time Fellow and Lecturer
of Trinity College), down to the present day, when the
principle has been accepted by all the Universities in Great
Britain and by some in countries beyond the seas, the movement
has shown marvellous vitality and power of adjustment to
changing conditions. From a small beginning in three towns in
the Midlands, it has grown until the centres in connection
with the various branches are to be numbered by hundreds and
the students by tens of thousands. The success attained by
Cambridge in the first three years led, in 1876, to the
formation of the London Society for the Extension of
University Teaching, for the express purpose of carrying on
similar work within the metropolitan area. In 1878 the
University of Oxford undertook to make similar arrangements
for Lectures, but after a year or two, they were for the time
abandoned. Subsequently in 1885 the Oxford work was revived
and has since been carried on with vigour and success. The
University of Durham is associated with Cambridge in this work
in the northeast of England, while courses of Lectures on the
Extension plan have been given for several years in connection
with Victoria University in centres around Manchester. Two or
three years ago the four Scottish Universities united in
forming a like scheme for Scotland, while at the close of 1889
a Society for the Extension of University Teaching was formed
in the north of Ireland. Finally the movement has spread to
Greater Britain and the United States, and there are signs
that work on similar lines is about to be established in
various countries on the continent of Europe."
R. D. Roberts, Eighteen years of University Extension,
chapter 1.
"One of the chief characteristics of the system is the method
of teaching adopted in connection with it. A working man at
one of the centres in the north of England who had attended
the lectures for several terms, described the method as
follows in a paper read by him at a meeting:--
'Any town or village which is prepared to provide an audience,
and pay the necessary fees, can secure a course of twelve
lectures on any subject taught in the University, by a
lecturer who has been educated at the University, and who is
specially fitted for lecturing work. A syllabus of the course
is printed and put into the hands of students. This syllabus
is a great help to persons not accustomed to note-taking.
Questions are given on each lecture, and written answers can
be sent in by anyone, irrespective of age or sex. All the
lectures, except the first, are preceded by a class, which
lasts about an hour. In this class the students and the
lecturer talk over the previous lecture. The written answers
are returned with such corrections as the lecturer deems
necessary. At the end of the course an examination is held and
certificates are awarded to the successful candidates. These
lectures are called University Extension Lectures.'
Another definition which has been given is this:
'Advanced systematic teaching for the people, without
distinction of rank, sex, or age, given by means of lectures,
classes, and written papers during a connected course,
conducted by men "who believe in their work, and intend to do
it," teachers who connect the country with the University by
manner, method, and information.'"
R. D. Roberts, The University Extension Scheme, pages 6-7.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1892.
University Extension in the United States.
"The first conscious attempts to introduce English University
Extension methods into this country were made in 1887, by
individuals connected with the Johns Hopkins University. The
subject was first publicly presented to the American Library
Association at their meeting upon one of the Thousand Islands
in September, 1887. The idea was heartily approved," and the
first result of the suggestion was a course of lectures on
economic questions given in one of the lecture-rooms of the
Buffalo Library the following winter by Dr. Edward W. Bemis.
The next winter "Dr. Bemis repeated his course on 'Economic
Questions of the Day' in Canton, Ohio. ... The Canton
experiment was followed in February, 1889, by another course,
conducted by Dr. Bemis, in connection with the Public Library
at St. Louis. ... About the time when these various
experiments were being tried in St. Louis, Canton, and
Buffalo, individual members of Johns Hopkins University were
attempting to introduce University Extension methods in
connection with local lectures in the city of Baltimore. ...
The idea of University Extension in connection with Chautauqua
was conceived by Dr. J. H. Vincent during a visit to England,
in 1886, when he saw the English lecture system in practical
operation and his own methods of encouraging home reading in
growing favor with university men. The first definite American
plan, showing at once the aims, methods, cost, and history, of
University Extension lectures, was drawn up at Chautauqua by
the writer of this article in the early summer of 1888. ...
Contemporary with the development of Chautauqua College and
University Extension was the plan of Mr. Seth T. Stewart, of
Brooklyn, New York, for 'University and School Extension.' ...
Several public meetings were held in New York in 1889-90 for
the promotion of University and School Extension. ... One of
the most gratifying recent experiments in University Extension
in America has been in the city of Philadelphia under the
auspices of the American Society for the Extension of
University Teaching. At various local centres Mr. Richard G.
Moulton, one of the most experienced lecturers from Cambridge,
England, lectured for ten weeks in the winter and spring of
1891 to large and enthusiastic audiences. All the essential
features of English University Extension were methodically and
persistently carried out. ... The American field for
University Extension is too vast for the missionary labors of
any one society or organization. ... The most significant sign
of the times with regard to University Extension in America is
the recent appropriation of the sum of $10,000 for this very
object by the New York legislature. The money is to be
expended under the direction of the Regents of the University
of the State of New York. ... The intention of the New York
act is simply to provide the necessary means for organizing a
State system of University Extension ... and to render such
general assistance and co-operation as localities may
require."
H. B. Adams, University Extension in America,
(Forum, July, 1891).
On the opening, in 1892, of the Chicago University,
munificently endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, of Cleveland,
University Extension was made one of the three grand divisions
of its organization.
{749}
EDWARD,
King of Portugal,
A. D. 1433-1438..
Edward, called the Confessor, King of England,
A. D. 1042-1065.
Edward, called the Elder, King of Wessex,
A. D. 901-925.
Edward, called the Martyr, King of Wessex,
A. D. 975.
Edward I., King of England,
A. D. 1274-1307.
Edward II., King of England,
A. D. 1307-1327.
Edward III., King of England,
A. D. 1327-1377.
Edward V., King of England (first king of the House of York),
A. D. 1461-1483.
Edward V., titular King of England,
A. D. 1483 (from April 9, when his father, Edward IV.,
died, until June 22, when he is believed to have been
murdered in the Tower by command of his uncle, the usurper,
Richard III.).
Edward VI., King of England,
A. D. 1547-1553.
EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1755.
Built by the New England troops.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1717.
Abandoned to the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1777(JULY-OCTOBER).
----------EDWARD, Fort: End----------
EDWIG, King of Wessex, A. D. 955-957.
EDWIN, King of Northumbria, A. D. 617-633.
Egesta.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
and SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
EGFRITH, King of Northumbria, A. D. 670-685.
EGINA.--EGINETANS.
See ÆGINA.
EGMONT, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and 1566-1568.
EGNATIAN WAY, The.
A Roman road constructed from Apollonia on the Adriatic to the
shores of the Hellespont; finally carried to Byzantium.
EGRA: A. D. 1647.
Siege and capture by the Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
EGYPT:
Its Names.
"Egypt is designated in the old inscriptions, as well as in
the books of the later Christian Egyptians, by a word which
signifies 'the black land,' and which is read in the Egyptian
language Kern, or Kami."
[Footnote: Kamit in the edition of 1891.]
"The ancients had early remarked that the cultivable land of
Egypt was distinguished by its dark and almost black colour.
... The neighbouring region of the Arabian desert bore the
name of Tesher, or the red land. ... The Egyptians designated
themselves simply as 'the people of the black land,' and ...
the inscriptions, so far as we know, have handed down to us no
other appellation. ... A real enigma is proposed to us in the
derivation and meaning of the curious proper name, by which
the foreign peoples of Asia, each in its own dialect, were
accustomed to designate Egypt. The Hebrews gave the land the
name of Mizraim; the Assyrians Muzur; the Persians, Mudraya.
We may feel assured that at the basis of all these
designations there lies an original form which consisted of
the three letters M-z-r, all explanations of which have been
as yet unsuccessful. Although I intend hereafter to consider
more particularly the derivation of this puzzling name, which
is still preserved at the present day in the Arabic
appellation Misr, I will here premise the remark that this
name was originally applied only to a certain definite part of
Egypt, in the east of the Delta, which, according to the
monuments, was covered and defended by many 'zor,' or
fortresses, and was hence called in Egyptian Mazor (that is,
fortified)."
H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 2.
"Brugsch explains the name Egypt by 'ha-ka-ptah,' i. e. 'the
precinct of Ptah.' As Ptah was more especially the god of
Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 1, chapter 1, note.
"The last use of Kem died out in the form Chemi in Coptic, the
descendant of the classical language, which ceased to be
spoken a century ago. It survives among us in the terms
'chemistry' and 'alchemy,' sciences thought to be of Egyptian
origin."
R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, introduction.
EGYPT:
Its Historical Antiquity.
The lists of Egyptian kings which have been found "agree in
presenting the name of Mena [or Menes] as that of the first
Pharaoh of Egypt, and as such he is unhesitatingly accepted,
although no contemporary monumental record of the fact has yet
been discovered. According to Manetho, the age of Mena dates
back to a period of 5,004 years before the Christian era, a
date which is nearly equal to 7,000 years from the present
day. Brugsch favours a somewhat less interval, namely, 4455 B. C.;
others place it as low as 2700 B. C., whilst Birch and
Chabas adopt a medium date, namely 4000 B. C., which is
equivalent to 6000 years backward from the existing time.
These extreme variations are chiefly referable to the
difficulty of ascertaining the precise length of each
individual reign, and especially to the occasional
contemporaneous reign of two or more kings, and sometimes the
existence of two or more dynasties in different parts of the
empire. ... Lieblein gives full credit to the chronology of
Manetho [a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote about 260 B. C.],
as recorded by the historian Africanus, as likewise did the
distinguished Mariette, and differs very little from the
standard adopted by Birch. He assigns to Mena, as the pioneer
of the first monarchy, a date in round numbers of 3900 years."
E. Wilson, The Egypt of the Past, chapter 1.
"As to the era ... when the first Pharaoh mounted the throne,
the German Egyptologers have attempted to fix it at the
following epochs: Boeckh, B. C. 5702; Unger, 5613; Brugsch,
4455; Lauth, 4157; Lepsius, 3892; Bunsen, 3623. The difference
between the two extreme points of the series is amazingly
great, for its number of years amounts to no less than 2079.
... The calculations in question are based on the extracts
already often mentioned from a work by the Egyptian priest
Manetho on the history of Egypt. That learned man had then at
his command the annals of his country's history, which were
preserved in the temples, and from them, the best and most
accurate sources, be derived the materials for his work,
composed in the Greek language, on the history of the ancient
Egyptian Dynasties. His book, which is now lost, contained a
general review of the kings of the land, divided into Thirty
Dynasties, arranged in the order of their names, with the
lengths of their reigns, and the total duration of each
dynasty. Though this invaluable work was little known and
certainly but little regarded by the historians of the old
classical age, large extracts were made from it by some of the
ecclesiastical writers. In process of time the copyists,
either by error or designedly, corrupted the names and the
numbers, and thus we only possess at the present day the ruins
instead of the complete building. The truth of the original,
and the authenticity of its sources were first proved by the
deciphering of the Egyptian writings. And thus the Manethonian
list served, and still serves, as a guide for assigning to the
royal names read on the monuments their places in the
Dynasties."
H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 4.
See, also, MANETHO, LIST OF.
{750}
EGYPT:
Origin of the ancient people.
"The Egyptians, together with some other nations, form, as it
would seem, a third branch of that [the Caucasian] race,
namely, the family called Cushite, which is distinguished by
special characters from the Pelasgian and the Semitic
families. Whatever relations may be found always to exist
between these great races of mankind, thus much may be
regarded as certain, that the cradle of the Egyptian people
must be sought in the interior of the Asiatic quarter of the
world. In the earliest ages of humanity, far beyond all
historical remembrance, the Egyptians, for reasons unknown to
us, left the soil of their primeval home, took their way
towards the setting sun, and finally crossed that bridge of
nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the
favoured banks of the holy Nile. Comparative philology, in its
turn, gives powerful support to this hypothesis. The Egyptian
language ... shows in no way any trace of a derivation and
descent from the African families of speech. On the contrary,
the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian
grammar point to such an intimate connection with the
Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages that it is almost
impossible to mistake the close relations which formerly
prevailed between the Egyptians and the races called
Indo-Germanic and Semitic."
H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 1.
"It has been maintained by some that the immigration was from
the south, the Egyptians having been a colony from Ethiopia
which gradually descended the Nile and established itself in
the middle and lower portions of the valley; and this theory
can plead in its favour, both a positive statement of
Diodorus, and the fact, which is quite certain, of an ethnic
connection between the Egyptians and some of the tribes who
now occupy Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia). But modern
research has shown quite unmistakably that the movement of the
Egyptians was in the opposite direction. ... We must look,
then, rather to Syria or Arabia than to Ethiopia as the cradle
of the Egyptian nation. At the same time we must admit that
they were not mere Syrians or Arabs, but had, from the
remotest time whereto we can go back, distinct
characteristics, whereby they have a good claim to be
considered as a separate race."
G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 3.
"So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa,
like the valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot
of the Abyssinian hills, was inhabited by nations who in
colour, language, and customs were sharply distinguished from
the negro. These nations belong to the whites: their languages
were most closely allied to the Semitic. From this, and from
their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been drawn
that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil
of Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still
continue in the language of the Berbers. Assisted by the
favourable conditions of their land, the tribe which settled
on the Lower Nile quickly left their kinsmen far behind.
Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life. The
descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the
Nile, in spite of the numerous layers which the course of
centuries has subsequently laid upon the soil of the land,
still form the larger part of the population of Egypt, and the
ancient language is preserved in the dialect of the Copts."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 1, chapter 1.
EGYPT:
The Old Empire and the Middle Empire.
The following are the Egyptian Dynasties, from the first
Pharaoh, Mena, to the epoch of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings,
with the dates and periods assigned to each by Brugsch:
The First Dynasty; of Thinis: B. C. 4400-4166.
The Second; of Thinis: 4133-4000.
The Third; of Memphis: 3966-3766.
The Fourth; of Memphis: 3733-3600.
The Fifth; of Elephantine: 3566-3333.
The Sixth; of Memphis: 3300-3066.
The Seventh to the Eleventh
(a confused and obscure period): 3033-2500.
The Twelfth; of Thebes: 2466-2266.
H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
appendix A.
"The direct descendants of Menes [or Mena] form the First
Dynasty, which, according to Manetho, reigned 253 years. No
monument contemporary with these princes has come down to us.
... The Second Dynasty, to which Manetho assigns nine kings,
lasted 302 years. It was also originally from This [or
Thinis], and probably related to the First. ... When this
family had become extinct, a Dynasty, originally from Memphis,
seized the throne, forming the Third, and to it a duration of
214 years is attributed. ... With the Fourth Dynasty, Memphite
like the Third, and which reigned 284 years, history becomes
clearer and monuments more numerous. This was the age of the
three Great Pyramids, built by the three kings, Khufu (the
Cheops of Herodotus), Shafra (Chefren), and Menkara
(Mycerinus). ... The Fifth Dynasty came originally from
Elephantine, at the southern extremity of Upper Egypt, and
there possibly the kings generally resided, though at the same
time Memphis was not deprived of its importance. ... On the
death of the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, a new family, of
Memphitic origin according to Manetho, came to the throne. ...
Primitive art attained its highest point under the Sixth
Dynasty. ... But, from the time of the civil commotions in
which Neit-aker [the Nitocris of Herodotus] perished, Egyptian
civilization underwent a sudden and unaccountable eclipse.
From the end of the Sixth Dynasty to the commencement of the
Eleventh, Manetho reckons 436 years, and for this whole period
the monuments are absolutely silent. Egypt seems then to have
disappeared from the rank of nations; and when this long
slumber ended, civilization commenced a new career, entirely
independent of the past. ...
{751}
Thus ends that period of nineteen centuries, which modern
scholars know as the Old Empire. ... Thebes did not exist in
the days of the glory of the Old Empire. The holy city of Amen
seems to have been founded during the period of anarchy and
obscurity, succeeding, as we have said, to the Sixth Dynasty.
Here was the birthplace of that renewed civilization, that new
monarchy, we are accustomed to call the Middle Empire, the
middle age in fact of ancient Egypt--a middle age anterior to
the earliest ages of all other history. From Thebes cane the
six kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. ... We again quote the
excellent remarks of M. Mariette: 'When, with the Eleventh
Dynasty, we see Egypt awake from her long slumber, all old
traditions appear to be forgotten; the proper names used in
ancient families, the titles of functionaries, the style of
writing, and even the religion--all seem new. This,
Elephantine, and Memphis, are no longer the favourite
capitals. Thebes for the first time becomes the seat of
sovereign power. Egypt, moreover, has lost a considerable
portion of her territory, and the authority of her legitimate
kings hardly extends beyond the limited district of the
Thebaid. The study of the monuments confirms these general
views; they are rude, primitive, sometimes coarse; and when we
look at them we may well believe that Egypt, under the
Eleventh Dynasty, again passed through a period of infancy, as
she had already done under the Third Dynasty.' A dynasty
probably related to, and originally from the same place as
these first Theban princes succeeded them. ... This Twelfth
Dynasty reigned for 213 years, and its epoch was one of
prosperity, of peace at home and glorious achievements abroad.
... Although the history of the Twelfth Dynasty is clear and
well known, illustrated by numerous monuments, there is,
nevertheless, no period in the annals of Egypt more obscure
than the one closing with the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is one
long series of revolutions, troubles, and internal
dissensions, closed by a terrible catastrophe, the greatest
and most lasting recorded in Egyptian history, which a second
time interrupted the march of civilization on the banks of the
Nile, and for a while struck Egypt from the list of nations."
F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1-2.
ALSO IN:
C. C. J. Bunsen, Egypt's Place in Universal History, volume 2.
See, also, MEMPHIS, and THEBES, EGYPT.
EGYPT:
The Hyksos, or Shepherd-Kings.
According to the Manethouian account which the Jewish
historian Josephus has preserved to us by transcribing it, the
Egyptian Netherlands were at a certain time overspread by a
wild and rough people, which came from the countries of the
east, overcame the native kings who dwelt there, and took
possession of the whole country, without finding any great
opposition on the part of the Egyptians. They were called
Hyksos, which Josephus interpreted as meaning Shepherd-kings.
"Hyk," he explained, meant King, in the holy language, and
"sos," in the dialect of the people, signified Shepherd. But
Dr. Brugsch identifies "sos" with the name "Shasu," which the
old Egyptians gave to the Bedouins, whose name became
equivalent to Shepherds. Hence Dr. Brugsch inclines to the
ancient opinion transmitted by Josephus, that the Hyksos were
Arabs or Bedouins--the Shasu of the Egyptian records, who hung
on the northeastern frontier of Egypt from the most ancient
times and were always pressing into the country, at every
opportunity. But many objections against this view are raised
and the different theories advanced to account for the Hyksos
are quite numerous. Canon Rawlinson says: "The Egyptians of
the time of Herodotus seem to have considered that they were
Philistines. Moderns have regarded them as Canaanites,
Syrians, Hittites. It is an avoidance rather than a solution
of the difficulty to say that they were 'a collection of all
the nomad hordes of Arabia and Syria' [Lenormant], since there
must have been a directing hand. ... On the whole, therefore,
we lean to the belief that the so-called Hyksos or Shepherds
were Hittites."
G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt. chapter 19.
"It is maintained on good authority that the Hyksos, or
Shepherd-Kings, had secured possession of the eastern frontier
of Lower Egypt immediately after the close of the Twelfth
Dynasty; that at this time the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth
Dynasties ruled contemporaneously, the former in Upper, the
latter in Lower Egypt; one was illegitimate, the other the
illegitimate line; but authors are not in accord as to their
right of priority. It is supposed that, while Egypt claimed
the Thirteenth Dynasty as her own, the Hyksos usurped the
mastery over the Fourteenth Dynasty, and governed through the
agency of its kings, treating them meanwhile as vassal chiefs.
These local kings had cities from which they were unable to
escape, and were deprived of an army of defence. Such was the
state of the country for 184 years, when the Fourteenth
Dynasty died out, and when the Fifteenth Dynasty, constituted
of six successive Hyksos kings, took the reins of government
into their own hands. Lieblein, whose views we are now
endeavouring to express, assigns as the date of the invasion
of the Hyksos 2108 years B. C. ... It is not improbable that
the well-known journey of Abraham to Egypt was made during the
early period of the reign of the Shepherd-Kings; whilst the
visit of Joseph occurred near the close of their power."
E. Wilson, The Egypt of the Past, chapter 5.
"'The Shepherds possessed themselves of Egypt by violence,'
writes Mariette-Bey, 'but the civilization which they
immediately adopted on their conquest was rather Egyptian than
Asiatic, and the discoveries of Avaris (San) prove that they
did not even banish from their temples the gods of the ancient
Egyptian Pantheon.' In fact the first shepherd-king, Solatis
himself, employed an Egyptian artist to inscribe ... his title
on the statue of a former legitimate Pharaoh. 'They did not
disturb the civilization more than the Persians or the Greeks,
but simply accepted the higher one they had conquered.' So our
revered scholar Dr. Birch has summed up the matter; and Professor
Maspero has very happily described it thus: 'The popular
hatred loaded them with ignominious epithets, and treated them
as accursed, plague-stricken, leprous. Yet they allowed
themselves very quickly to be domesticated. ... Once admitted
to the school of Egypt, the barbarians progressed quickly in
the civilized life. The Pharaonic court reappeared around
these shepherd-kings, with all its pomp and all its following
of functionaries great and small. The royal style and title of
Cheops and the Amenemhas were fitted to the outlandish names
of Jannes and Apapi. The Egyptian religion, without being
officially adopted, was tolerated, and the religion of the
Canaanites underwent some modifications to avoid hurting
beyond measure the susceptibility of the worshippers of
Osiris.'"
H. G. Tomkins, Studies on the Times of Abraham, chapter 8.
{752}
In a late Italian work ("Gli Hyksos") by Dr. C. A. de Cara,
"he puts together all that is ascertained in regard to them
[the Hyksos], criticises the theories that have been
propounded on their behalf, and suggests a theory of his own.
Nothing that has been published on the subject seems to have
escaped his notice. ... His own view is that the Hyksos
represented a confederacy of various Asiatic tribes, under the
leadership of the northern Syrians. That their ruling class
came from this part of the world seems to me clear from the
name of their supreme god Sutekh, who occupied among them the
position of the Semitic Baal."
A. H. Sayce, The Hyksôs (Academy, September 20,1890).
"Historical research concerning the history of the Hyksos may
be summed up as follows:
I. A certain number of non-Egyptian kings of foreign
origin, belonging to the nation of the Menti, ruled for a
long time in the eastern portion of the Delta.
II. These chose as their capitals the cities of Zoan and
Avaris, and provided them with strong fortifications.
III. They adopted not only the manners and customs of the
Egyptians, but also their official language and writing,
and the order of their court was arranged on Egyptian
models.
IV. They were patrons of art, and Egyptian artists erected,
after the ancient models, monuments in honour of these
usurpers, in whose statues they were obliged to reproduce
the Hyksos physiognomy, the peculiar arrangement of the
beard und head-dress, as well as other variations of their
costume.
V. They honored Sutekh, the son of Nut, as the supreme god
of their newly acquired country, with the surname Nub, 'the
golden.' He was the origin of all that is evil and perverse
in the visible and invisible world, the opponent of good
and the enemy of light. In the cities of Zoan and Avaris,
splendid temples were constructed in honour of this god,
and other monuments raised, especially Sphinxes, carved out
of stone from Syene.
VI. In all probability one of them was the founder of a new
era, which most likely began with the first year of his
reign. Down to the time of the second Ramses, four hundred
years had elapsed of this reckoning which was acknowledged
even by the Egyptians.
VII. The Egyptians were indebted to their contact with them
for much useful knowledge. In particular their artistic views
were expanded and new forms and shapes, notably that of the
winged sphinx, were introduced, the Semitic origin of which is
obvious at a glance. ...
The inscriptions on the monuments designate that foreign
people who once ruled in Egypt by the name of Men or Menti. On
the walls of the temple of Edfû it is stated that 'the
inhabitants of the land of Asher are called Menti.' ... In the
different languages, ... and in the different periods of
history, the following names are synonymous: Syria, Rutennu of
the East, Asher, and Menti."--"Since, on the basis of the
most recent and best investigations in the province of ancient
Egyptian chronology, we reckon the year 1350 B. C. as a mean
computation for the reign of Ramses, the reign of the Hyksos
king, Nub, and probably its beginning, falls in the year 1750
B. C., that is, 400 years before Ramses II. Although we are
completely in the dark as to the place King Nub occupied in
the succession of the kindred princes of his house, yet the
number mentioned is important, as an approximate epoch for the
stay of the foreign kings in Egypt. According to the statement
in the Bible, the Hebrews from the immigration of Jacob into
Egypt until the Exodus remained 430 years in that land. Since
the Exodus from Egypt took place in the time of Meneptah II.,
the son of Ramses II.--the Pharaoh of the oppression--the
year B. C. 1300 may be an approximate date. If we add to this
430 years, as expressing the total duration of the sojourn of
the Hebrews in Egypt, we arrive at the year 1730 B. C. as the
approximate date for the immigration of Jacob into Egypt, and
for the time of the official career of Joseph at the court of
Pharaoh. In other words, the time of Joseph (1730 B. C.) must
have fallen in the period of the Hyksos domination, about the
reign of the above-mentioned prince Nub (1750 B. C)."
H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs (edition of 1891,
by.M. Brodrick), pages 106-109, and 126.
See JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
ALSO IN:
F. C. H. Wendel, History of Egypt, chapter 4.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1700-1400.
The New Empire.
The Eighteenth Dynasty.
"The dominion of the Hyksos by necessity gave rise to profound
internal divisions, alike in the different princely families
and in the native population itself. Factions became rampant
in various districts, and reached the highest point in the
hostile feeling of the inhabitants of Patoris or the South
country against the people of Patomit or North country, who
were much mixed with foreign blood. ... From this condition of
divided power and of mutual jealousy the foreign rulers
obtained their advantage and their chief strength, until King
Aahmes made himself supreme."
H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs
(edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick).
"The duration of the reign of this first Pharaoh of the New
Empire was twenty-five years. He was succeeded by his son
Amenhotep I. and the latter by his son Thothmes I. "The reign
of Thothmes 1. ... derives its chief distinction from the fact
that, at this period of their history, the Egyptians for the
first time carried their arms deep into Asia, overrunning
Syria, and even invading Mesopotamia, or the tract between the
Tigris and the Euphrates. Hitherto the furthest point reached
in this direction had been Sharuhen in Southern Palestine. ...
Syria was hitherto almost an undiscovered region to the
powerful people which nurturing its strength in the Nile
valley, had remained content with its own natural limits and
scarcely grasped at any conquests. A time was now come when
this comparative quietude and absence of ambition were about
to cease. Provoked by the attack made upon her from the side
of Asia, and smarting from the wounds inflicted upon her pride
and prosperity by the Hyksos during the period of their rule,
Egypt now set herself to retaliate, and for three centuries
continued at intervals to pour her armies into the Eastern
continent, and to carry fire and sword over the extensive and
populous regions which lay between the Mediterranean and the
Zagros mountain range. There is some uncertainty as to the
extent of her conquests; but no reasonable doubt can be
entertained that for a space of three hundred years Egypt was
the most powerful and the most aggressive state that the world
contained, and held a dominion that has as much right to be
called an 'Empire' as the Assyrian, the Babylonian or the Persian.
{753}
While Babylonia, ruled by Arab conquerors, declined in
strength, and Assyria proper was merely struggling into
independence, Egypt put forth her arm and grasped the fairest
regions of the earth's surface." The immediate successor of
Thothmes I. was his son, Thothmes II., who reigned in
association with a sister of masculine character, queen
Hatasu. The strong-minded queen, moreover, prolonged her reign
after the death of this elder brother, until a younger
brother, Thothmes III. displaced her. The Third Thothmes was
the greatest of Egyptian conquerors and kings. He carried his
arms beyond the Euphrates, winning a memorable victory at
Megiddo over the confederated kings of the Syrian and
Mesopotamian countries. He left to his son (Amenhotep II.) "a
dominion extending about 1,100 miles from north to south, and
(in places) 450 miles from west to east." He was a great
builder, likewise, and "has left the impress of his presence
in Egypt more widely than almost any other of her kings, while
at the same time he has supplied to the great capitals of the
modern world their most striking Egyptian monuments." The
larger of the obelisks now standing in Rome and
Constantinople, as well as those at London and New York were
all of them produced in the reign of this magnificent Pharaoh.
The two obelisks last named stood originally, and for fourteen
centuries at the front of the great temple of the sun, in
Heliopolis. They were removed by the Roman Emperor, Augustus,
B. C: 23, to Alexandria, where they took in time the name of
Cleopatra's Needles,--although Cleopatra had no part in their
long history. After nineteen centuries more of rest, these
strangely coveted monuments were again disturbed, and
transported into lands which their builder knew not of. The
later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty seem to have, none of
them, possessed the energy and character of Thothmes III. The
line ended about 1400 B. C. with Horemheb, who left no heirs.
G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs chapter 13.
H. H. Gorringe, Egyptian ·Obelisks.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1500-1400.
The Tell el-Amarna Tablets.
Correspondence of the Egyptian kings with Babylonia, Assyria,
Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine.
"The discovery made in 1887 by a peasant woman of Middle Egypt
may be described as the most important of all contributions to
the early political history of Western Asia. We have become
possessed of a correspondence, dating from the fifteenth
century B. C., which was carried on during the reigns of three
Egyptian kings, with the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, Armenia,
Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, during a period of great
activity, when revolutions which affected the whole history of
the east shore lands of the Mediterranean were in progress;
and we find in these tablets a contemporary picture of the
civilisation of the age. ... The Tell Amarna tablets represent
a literature equal in bulk to about half the Pentateuch, and
concerned almost exclusively with political affairs, They are
clay tablets, varying from two inches to a foot in length,
with a few as large as eighteen inches, covered with cuneiform
writing generally on both sides, and often on the edges as
well. The peasantry unearthed nearly the complete collection,
including some 320 pieces in all; and explorers afterwards
digging on the site have added only a few additional
fragments. The greater number were bought for the Berlin
Museum, while eighty-two were acquired for England, and the
rest remain either in the Boulak Museum at Cairo; or, in a few
instances, in the hands of private collectors. ... Tell Amarna
(apparently 'the mound of the tumuli ') is an important ruined
site on the east bank of the Nile, about a hundred and fifty
miles in a straight line south of Cairo. Its Egyptian name is
said to have been Khu-en-aten, 'Glory of the Sun-disk.'"
The Tell Amarna Tablets (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893).
"The collection of Cuneiform Tablets recently found [1887] at
Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, consisted of about three
hundred and twenty documents, or portions of documents. The
British Museum possesses eighty-two ... the Berlin Museum has
one hundred and sixty, a large number being fragments; the
Gizeh Museum has sixty; and a few are in the hands of private
persons. ... In color the Tablets vary from a light to a dark
dust tint, and from a flesh-color to dark brick-red. The
nature of the clay of which they are made sometimes indicates
the countries from which they come. The size of the Tablets in
the British Museum varies from 8¾ inches x 4-7/8 inches to 2-1/8
inches x 1-11/16 inches; the longest text contains 98 lines, the
shortest 10. ... The greater number are rectangular, and a few
are oval; and they differ in shape from any other cuneiform
documents known to us. ... The writing ... resembles to a
certain extent the Neo-Babylonian, i. e., the simplification
of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire used commonly in
Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B. C. It
possesses, however, characteristics different from those of
any other style of cuneiform writing of any period now known
to exist; and nearly every tablet contains forms of characters
which have hitherto been thought peculiar to the Ninevite or
Assyrian style of writing. But, compared with the neat,
careful hand employed in the official documents drawn up for
the kings of Assyria, it is somewhat coarse and careless, and
suggests the work of unskilled scribes. One and the same hand,
however, appears in tablets which come from the same person
and the same place. On some of the large tablets the writing
is bold and free; on some of the small ones the characters are
confused and cramped, and are groups of strokes rather than
wedges. The spelling ... is often careless, and in some
instances syllables have been omitted. At present it is not
possible to say whether the irregular spelling is due to the
ignorance of the scribe or to dialectic peculiarities. ... The
Semitic dialect in which these letters are written is
Assyrian, and is, in some important details, closely related
to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. ... The documents were
most probably written between the years B. C. 1500 to 1450.
... They give an insight into the nature of the political
relations which existed between the kings of Western Asia and
the kings of Egypt, and prove that an important trade existed
between the two countries from very early times. ... A large
number of the present tablets are addressed to 'the King of
Egypt,' either Amenophis III. or Amenophis IV. Nearly all of
them consist of reports of disasters to the Egyptian power and
of successful intrigues against it, coupled by urgent
entreaties for help, pointing to a condition of distraction
and weakness in Egypt. ... The most graphic details of the
disorganized condition, and of the rival factions, of the
Egyptian dependencies lying on the coastline of Phoenicia and
Northern Palestine, are to be gathered from a perusal of the
dispatches of the governors of the cities of Byblos, Beyrut
and Tyre."
The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum, introduction.
{754}
"In the present state of cuneiform research I believe it to be
impossible to give a translation of the Tell el-Amarna texts
which would entirely satisfy the expert or general reader. No
two scholars would agree as to any interpretation which might
be placed upon certain rare grammatical forms and unknown
words in the Babylonian text, and any literal translation in a
modern language would not be understood by the general reader
on account of the involved style and endless repetition of
phrases common to a Semitic idiom and dialect. About the
general meaning of the contents of the greater number of the
letters there can be no doubt whatever, and it is therefore
possible to make a summary of the contents of each letter,
which should, as a rule, satisfy the general reader, and at
the same time form a guide to the beginner in cuneiform.
Summaries of the contents of the Tell el-Amarna tablets in the
British Museum have been published in 'The Tell el-Amarna
Tablets in the British Museum, with autotype facsimiles,'
printed by order of the Trustees, London, 1892, and it is
hoped that the transliteration, given in the following pages
may form a useful supplement to that work." ...
No. 1. A Letter from Egypt--Amenophis III. to Kallimma (?)
Sin, King of Karaduniyash, referring to his proposed marriage
with Sukharti, the daughter of Kallimma-Sin, and containing
the draft of a commercial treaty, and an allusion to the
disappearance of certain chariots and horses.
No.2. Letters from Babylonia-Burraburiyash, King of
Karaduniyash, to Amenophis IV., referring to the friendship
which had existed between their respective fathers, and the
help which had been rendered to the King of Egypt by
Burraburiyash himself; the receipt of two manahs of gold is
acknowledged and a petition is made for more.
No. 3. Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash to Amenophis IV.,
complaining that the Egyptian messengers had visited his
country thrice without bringing gifts, and that they withheld
some of the gold which had been sent to him from Egypt;
Burraburiyash announces the despatch of a gift of lapis-lazuli
for the Egyptian princess who was his son's wife. ...
No. 30. Letter from Abi-milki, governor of Tyre, to the King
of Egypt, reporting that he believes Zimrida will not be able
to stir up disaffection in the city of Sidon, although he has
caused much hostility against Tyre. He asks for help to
protect the city, and for water to drink and wood to burn, and
he sends with his messenger Ili-milki five talents of copper
and other gifts for the King of Egypt. He reports that the
King of Danuna is dead and that his brother reigns in his
stead; one half of the city of Ugarit has been destroyed by
fire; the soldiers of the Khatti have departed; Itagamapairi,
governor of Kedesh, and Aziru are fighting against Namyawiza.
If the King of Egypt will but send a few troops, all will be
well with Tyre. ...
No. 43. Letter from the governor of a town in Syria to the
King of Egypt, reporting that the rebels have asserted their
independence; that Biridashwi has stirred up rebellion in the
city of Inu-Amma; that its people have captured chariots in
the city of Ashtarti: that the kings of the cities of Buzruna
and Khalunni have made a league with Biridashwi to slay
Namyawiza (who, having taken refuge in Damascus and being
attacked by Arzawiya, declared himself to be a vassal of
Egypt); that Arzawiya went to the city of Gizza and afterwards
captured the city of Shaddu; that Itakkama ravaged the country
of Gizza; and that Arzawiya and Biridashwi have wasted the
country of Abitu.
No. 44. Continuation (1) of a letter to the King of Egypt,
reporting that, owing to the hostilities of Abd-Ashirta,
Khâya, an official, was unable to send ships to the country of
Amurri, as he had promised. The ships from Arvad which the
writer has in his charge, lack their full complement of men
for war service, and he urges the king to make use of the
ships and crews which he has had with him in Egypt. The writer
of the letter also urges the King of Egypt to appoint an
Egyptian official over the naval affairs of Sidon, Beyrut and
Arvad, and to seize Abd-Ashirta and put him under restraint to
prevent him obstructing the manning of the ships of war. ...
No. 58. Letter from the governor of a district in Palestine
(?) to the governors of neighbouring states in the land of
Canaan, informing them that he is about to send his messenger
Akiya on a mission to the King of Egypt, and to place himself
and every thing that he has at his disposal. Akiya will go to
Egypt by the way of Canaan, and the writer of this letter
suggests that any gifts they may have to send to Egypt should
be carried by him, for Akiya is a thoroughly trustworthy man.
C. Bezold, Oriental Diplomacy: Being the transliterated
text of the Cuneiform Despatches, preface.
Under the title of "The Story of a 'Tell,'" Mr. W. M. Flinders
Petrie, the successful excavator and explorer of Egyptian
antiquities, gave a lecture in London, in June, 1892, in which
he described the work and the results of an excavation then in
progress under his direction on the supposed site of Lachish,
at a point where the maritime plain of Philistia rises to the
mountains of Judæa, on the route from Egypt into Asia. The
chairman who introduced Mr. Petrie defined the word "Tell" as
follows: "A Tell is a mound of earth showing by the presence
of broken pottery or worked stone that it is the site of a
ruined city or village. In England when a house falls down or
is pulled down the materials are usually worth the expense of
removing for use in some new building. But in Egypt common
houses have for thousands of years been built of sun-dried
bricks; in Palestine of rough rubble walling, which, on
falling, produces many chips, with thick flat roofs of
plaster. It is thus often less trouble to get new than to use
old material; the sites of towns grow in height, and
depressions are filled up." The mound excavated by Mr. Petrie
is known as Tell el Hesy. After he left the work it was
carried on by Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Petrie in his lecture says
"The last news is that Mr. Bliss has found the long looked for
prize, a cuneiform tablet. ... From the character of the
writing, which is the same as on the tablets written in
Palestine in 1400. B. C., to the Egyptian king at Tel el
Amarna, we have a close agreement regarding the chronology of
the town. Further, it mentions Zimrida as a governor, and this
same man appears as governor of Lachish on the tablets found
at Tel el Amarna. We have thus at last picked up the other end
of the broken chain of correspondence between Palestine and
Egypt, of which one part was so unexpectedly found in Egypt a
few years ago on the tablets at Tel el Amarna; and we may hope
now to recover the Palestinian part of this intercourse and so
establish the pre-Israelite history of the land."
W. M. F. Petrie, The Story of a "Tell"
(The City and the Land, lecture 6).
See, also, PALESTINE.
ALSO IN:
C. R. Conder, The Tell Amarna Tablets, translated.
{755}
EGYPT: About B. C. 1400-1200.
The first of the Ramesides.
The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus,
"Under the Nineteenth Dynasty, which acquired the throne after
the death of Har-em-Hebi [or Hor-em-heb] the fortune of Egypt
maintained to some extent its ascendancy; but, though the
reigns of some war-like kings throw a bright light on this
epoch, the shade of approaching trouble already darkens the
horizon." Ramses I. and his son, or son-in-law, Seti I., were
involved in troublesome wars with the rising power of the
Hittites, in Syria, and with the Shasu of the Arabian desert.
Seti was also at war with the Libyans, who then made their
first appearance in Egyptian history. His son Ramses II., the
Sesostris of the Greeks, who reigned for sixty-seven years, in
the fourteenth century B. C., has always been the most famous
of the Egyptian kings, and, by modern discovery, has been made
the most interesting of them to the Christian world. He was a
busy and boastful warrior, who accomplished no important
conquests; but "among the Pharaohs he is the builder 'par
excellence.' It is almost impossible to find in Egypt a ruin
or an ancient mound, without reading his name." ... It was to
these works, probably, that the Israelites then in Egypt were
forced to contribute their labor; for the Pharaoh of the
oppression is identified, by most scholars of the present day,
with this building and boasting Sesostris.
F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier, Manual of the
Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 3.
"The extreme length of the reign of Ramses was, as in other
histories, the cause of subsequent weakness and disaster. His
successor was an aged son, Menptah, who had to meet the
difficulties which were easily overcome by the youth of his
energetic father. The Libyans and their maritime allies broke
the long tranquillity of Egypt by a formidable invasion and
temporary conquest of the north-west. The power of the
monarchy was thus shaken, and the old king was not the leader
to restore it. His obscure reign was followed by others even
obscurer, and the Nineteenth Dynasty ended in complete
anarchy, which reached its height when a Syrian chief, in what
manner we know not, gained the rule of the whole country. It
is to the reign of Menptah that Egyptian tradition assigned
the Exodus, and modern research has come to a general
agreement that this is its true place in Egyptian history. ...
Unfortunately we do not know the duration of the oppression of
the Israelites, nor the condition of Lower Egypt during the
Eighteenth Dynasty, which, according to the hypothesis here
adopted, corresponds to a great part of the Hebrew sojourn. It
is, however, clear from the Bible that the oppression did not
begin till after the period of Joseph's contemporaries, and
had lasted eighty years before the Exodus. It seems almost
certain that this was the actual beginning of the oppression,
for it is very improbable that two separate Pharaohs are
intended by the 'new king which knew not Joseph' and the
builder of Rameses, or, in other words, Ramses II., and the
time from the accession of Ramses II. to the end of Menptah's
reign can have little exceeded the eighty years of Scripture
between the birth of Moses and the Exodus. ... If the
adjustment of Hebrew and Egyptian history for the oppression,
as stated above, be accepted, Ramses II. was probably the
first, and certainly the great oppressor. His character suits
this theory; he was an undoubted autocrat who ... covered
Egypt and Lower Nubia with vast structures that could only
have been produced by slave-labor on the largest scale."
R. S. Poole, Ancient Egypt (Contemporary Review,
March, 1879).
ALSO IN:
H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, chapter 14.
H. G. Tomkins, Life and Times of Joseph.
See, also:
JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1300.
Exodus of the Israelites.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
EGYPT: About B. C. 1200-670.
The decline of the empire of the Pharaohs.
From the anarchy in which the Nineteenth Dynasty came to its
end, order was presently restored by the seating in power of a
new family, which claimed to be of the Rameside stock. The
second of its kings, who called himself Ramses III. and who is
believed to be the Rhampsinitus of the Greeks, appears to have
been one of the ablest of the monarchs of his line. The
security and prosperity of Egypt were recovered under his
reign and he left it in a state which does not seem to have
promised the rapid decay which ensued. "It is difficult to
understand and account for the suddenness and completeness of
the collapse. ... The hieratic chiefs, the high priests of the
god Ammon at Thebes, gradually increased in power, usurped one
after another the prerogatives of the Pharaohs, by degrees
reduced their authority to a shadow, and ended with an open
assumption not only of the functions, but of the very insignia
of royalty. A space of nearly two centuries elapsed, however,
before this change was complete. Ten princes of the name of
Ramses, and one called Meri-Tum, all of them connected by
blood with the great Rameside house, bore the royal title and
occupied the royal palace, in the space between B. C. 1280 and
B. C. 1100. Egyptian history during this period is almost
wholly a blank. No military expeditions are conducted--no
great buildings are reared--art almost disappears--literature
holds her tongue." Then came the dynasty of the priest-kings,
founded by Her-Hor, which held the throne for more than a
century and was contemporary in its latter years with David
and Solomon. The Twenty-Second Dynasty which succeeded had its
capital at Bubastis and is concluded by Dr. Brugsch to have
been a line of Assyrian kings, representing an invasion and
conquest of Egypt by Nimrod, the great king of Assyria. Other
Egyptologists disagree with Dr. Brugsch in this, and Professor
Rawlinson, the historian of Assyria, finds objections to the
hypothesis from his own point of view.
{756}
The prominent monarch of this dynasty was the Sheshonk of
Biblical history, who sheltered Jeroboam, invaded Palestine
and plundered Jerusalem. Before this dynasty came to an end it
had lost the sovereignty of Egypt at large, and its Pharaohs
contended with various rivals and invaders. Among the latter,
power grew in the hands of a race of Ethiopians, who had risen
to importance at Napata, on the Upper Nile, and who extended
their power, at last, over the whole of Egypt. The Ethiopian
domination was maintained for two-thirds of a century, until
the great wave of Assyrian conquest broke upon Egypt in 672 B.
C. and swept over it, driving the Ethiopians back to Napata
and Meroë.
G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 25.
ALSO IN:
H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs, chapter 15-18.
E. Wilson, Egypt of the Past, chapter 8.
See, also, ETHIOPIA.
EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.
Assyrian conquest and restored independence.
The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
The Greeks at Naucratis.
Although Syria and Palestine had then been suffering for more
than a century from the conquering arms of the Assyrians, it
was not until 670 B. C., according to Professor Rawlinson, that
Esarhaddon passed the boundaries of Egypt and made himself
master of that country. His father Sennacherib, had attempted
the invasion thirty years before, at the time of his siege of
Jerusalem, and had recoiled before some mysterious calamity
which impelled him to a sudden retreat. The son avenged his
father's failure. The Ethiopian masters of Egypt were expelled
and the Assyrian took their place. He "broke up the country
into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who
bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a
certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned
at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamtik
I.)--a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in
Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho. The remaining
rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians."
These arrangements were soon broken up by the expelled
Ethiopian king, Tirhakah, who rallied his forces and swept the
Assyrian kinglets out of the country; but Asshur-bani-pal, son
and successor of Esarhaddon, made his appearance with an army
in 668 or 667 B. C. and Tirhakah fled before him. Again and
again this occurred, and for twenty years Egypt was torn
between the Assyrians and the Ethiopians, in their struggle
for the possession of her. At length, out of the chaos
produced by these conflicts there emerged a native ruler--the
Psammetichus mentioned above--who subjugated his fellow
princes and established a new Egyptian monarchy, which
defended itself with success against Assyria and Ethiopia,
alike. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, of Sais, founded by
Psammetichus, is suspected to have been of Libyan descent. It
ruled Egypt until the Persian conquest, and brought a great
new influence to bear on the country and people, by the
introduction of Greek soldiers and traders. It was under this
dynasty that the Greek city of Naucratis was founded, on the
Canobic branch of the Nile.
G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies: Assyria, chapter 9.
The site of Naucratis, near the Canobic branch of the Nile,
was determined by excavations which Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie
began in 1884, and from which much has been learned of the
history of the city and of early relations between the
Egyptians and the Greeks. It is concluded that the settlement
of Naucratis dates from about 660 B. C.--not long after the
beginning of the reign of Psammitichus--and that its Greek
founders became the allies of that monarch and his successors
against their enemies. "All are agreed that before the reign
of Psammitichus and the founding of Naucratis, Egypt was a
sealed book to the Greeks. It is likely that the Phoenicians,
who were from time to time the subjects of the Pharaohs, were
admitted, where aliens like the Greeks were excluded. We have
indeed positive evidence that the Egyptians did not wish
strange countries to learn their art, for in a treaty between
them and the Hittites it is stipulated that neither country
shall harbour fugitive artists from the other. But however the
fact may be accounted for, it is an undoubted fact that long
before Psammitichus threw Egypt open to the foreigner, the
Phoenicians had studied in the school of Egyptian art, and
learned to copy all sorts of handiwork procured from the
valley of the Nile. ... According to Herodotus and Diodorus,
the favour shown to the Greeks by the King was the cause of a
great revolt of the native Egyptian troops, who left the
frontier fortresses, and marched south beyond Elephantine,
where they settled, resisting all the entreaties of
Psammitichus, who naturally deplored the loss of the mainstay
of his dominions, and developed into the race of the Sebridae.
Wiedemann, however, rejects the whole story as unhistorical,
and certainly, if we closely consider it, it contains great
inherent improbabilities. ... Psammitichus died in B. C: 610,
and was succeeded by his son Necho, who was his equal in
enterprise and vigour. This King paid great attention to the
fleet of Egypt, and Greek shipwrights were set to work on both
the Mediterranean and Red Seas to build triremes for the State
navy. A fleet of his ships, we are told, succeeded in sailing
round Africa, a very great feat for the age. The King even
attempted the task, of which the completion was reserved for
the Persian Darius, the Ptolemies, and Trajan, of making a
canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Herodotus says
that, after sacrificing the lives of 120,000 men to the labour
and heat of the task, he gave it up, in consequence of the
warning of an oracle that he was toiling only for the
barbarians. ... Necho, like his father, must needs try the
edge of his new weapon, the Ionian mercenaries, on Asia. At
first he was successful. Josiah, King of Judah, came out
against him, but was slain, and his army dispersed. Greek
valour carried Necho as far as the Euphrates. ... But
Nebuchadnezzar, son of the King of Babylon, marched against
the invaders, and defeated them in a great battle near
Carehemish. His father's death recalled him to Babylon, and
Egypt was for the moment saved from counter-invasion by the
stubborn resistance offered to the Babylonian arms by
Jehoiakim, King of Judah, a resistance fatal to the Jewish
race; for Jerusalem was captured after a long siege, and most
of the inhabitants carried into captivity. Of Psammitichus
II., who succeeded Necho, we should know but little were it
not for the archaeological record. Herodotus only says that he
attacked Ethiopia, and died after a reign of six years.
{757}
But of the expedition thus summarily recorded we have a
lasting and memorable result in the well-known inscriptions
written by Rhodians and other Greek mercenaries on the legs of
the colossi at Abu Simbel in Nubia, which record how certain
of them came thither in the reign of Psammitichus, pushing up
the river in boats as far as it was navigable, that is,
perhaps, up to the second cataract. ... Apries, the Hophra of
the Bible, was the next king. The early part of his reign was
marked by successful warfare against the Phoenicians and the
peoples of Syria; but, like his predecessor, he was unable to
maintain a footing in Asia in the face of the powerful and
warlike Nebuchadnezzar. The hostility which prevailed between
Egypt and Babylon at this time caused King Apries to open a
refuge for those Jews who fled from the persecution of
Nebuchadnezzar. He assigned to their leaders, among whom were
the daughters of the King of Judah, a palace of his own at
Daphnae, 'Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes,' as it is called by
Jeremiah. That prophet was among the fugitives, and uttered in
the palace a notable prophecy, (xliii. 9) that King
Nebuchadnezzar should come and spread his conquering tent over
the pavement before it. Formerly it was supposed that this
prophecy remained unfulfilled, but this opinion has to be
abandoned. Recently discovered Egyptian and Babylonian
inscriptions prove that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt as far
as Syene. ... The fall of Apries as brought about by his
ingratitude to the Greeks, and his contempt for the lives of
his own subjects. He had formed the project of bringing under
his sway the Greek cities of the Cyrenaica. ... Apries
despatched against Cyrene a large force; but the Cyreneans
bravely defended themselves, and as the Egyptians on this
occasion marched without their Greek allies, they were
entirely defeated, and most of them perished by the sword, or
in the deserts which separate Cyrene from Egypt. The defeated
troops, and their countrymen who remained behind in garrison
in Egypt, imputed the disaster to treachery on the part of
Apries. ... They revolted, and chose as their leader Amasis, a
man of experience and daring. But Apries, though deserted by
his subjects, hoped still to maintain his throne by Greek aid.
At the head of 30,000 Ionians and Carians he marched against
Amasis. At Momemphis a battle took place between the rival
kings and between the rival nations; but the numbers of the
Egyptians prevailed over the arms and discipline of the
mercenaries, and Apries was defeated and captured by his
rival, who, however, allowed him for some years to retain the
name of joint-king. It is the best possible proof of the
solidity of Greek influence in Egypt at this time that Amasis,
though set on the throne by the native army after a victory
over the Greek mercenaries, yet did not expel these latter
from Egypt, but, on the contrary, raised them to higher favour
than before. ... In the delightful dawn of connected European
history we see Amasis as a wise and wealthy prince, ruling in
Egypt at the time when Polycrates was tyrant of Samos; and
when Croesus of Lydia, the richest king of his time, was
beginning to be alarmed by the rapid expansion of the Persian
power under Cyrus. ... In the days of Psammitichus III., the
son of Amasis, the storm which had overshadowed Asia broke
upon Egypt. One of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries in
Egypt named Phanes, a native of Halicarnassus, made his way to
the Persian Court, and persuaded Cambyses, who, according to
the story, had received from Amasis one of those affronts
which have so often produced wars between despots, to invade
Egypt in full force."
P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
W. M. F. Petrie, Naukratis.
See, also, NAUKRATIS.
EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
Persian conquest and sovereignty.
The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the
independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and
even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's
ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king
of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen
and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their
place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of
conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the
task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian
monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It
was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of
his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate
of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA:
B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father
Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects,
but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and
Carians. ... In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the
Egyptian army was completely defeated. ... The conquest of
Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring
tribes. ... Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and
Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his
tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous
expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he
retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted
rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country,
was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples
and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt
and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely
broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious
slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator
than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."
George Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 7.
"The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are
enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing
revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the
Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus,
who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and
the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte)
Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we
need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and
have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of
independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the
invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C.
353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius
Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending
with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C.
332)."
P. Smith, Ancient History of the East (Students'), chapter 8.
ALSO IN: S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 5.
{758}
EGYPT: B. C. 332.
Alexander's conquest.
"In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of
Tyre--see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330]
Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied
by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of
Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by
the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered
Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest,
but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake
off the Persian tyranny. ... Mazaces [the Persian commander]
himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became
aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and
met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the
fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it
to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched
across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the
honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis,
who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. ...
He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of
the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on
that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed
on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea,
and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales ...
by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by
a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the
isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis,
where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent
guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from
adventurers. ... Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck
by the advantages of this position for a city, which should
become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the
East and the West. ... He immediately gave orders for the
beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was
suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and
marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares,
palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander
remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the
occupation and administration of the country. "The system
which he established served in some points as a model for the
policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the
country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward,
and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of
Ammon.
C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 50.
EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
The kingdom of the Ptolemies.
In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between
his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus--reputed to be a
natural son of Alexander's father Philip--chose Egypt (see
MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be
wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was
the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by
reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest
of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he
founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more
security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of
the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen
years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name
(see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his
dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African
coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of
Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over
for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids,
sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see
SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest
extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy
Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of
Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene
they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them.
Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy
developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can
show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the
most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they
more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They
made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the
greatest seat of learning,--the successor of Athens as the
capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 7-12.
The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy
Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year
following.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
"Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly
altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other
respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt
took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead
of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great
effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the
country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had
scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring
up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies,
intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would
naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced
manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine
linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt
alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade
in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed,
enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and
Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in
return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to
offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies
seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red
Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual,
but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the
hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf.
Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread
eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë
and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian
trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands,
the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further
and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and
Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans,
could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which
had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. ... If we may
trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which
have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under
Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we
cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his
reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and
40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The
fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large
vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars.
Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then
more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."
P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 7.
See, also, ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
and EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.
{759}
EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.
Strife among the Ptolemies.
Roman pretensions.
The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between
Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son,
Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans
to support his claims by making a will in which he named the
Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to
Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that
they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was
obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days
afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen.
The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander
was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of
the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called
Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he
succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of
the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have
been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed
with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a
rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B.
C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in
Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will
his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder
son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the
Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The
Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its
executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three
years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought,
Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling
against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to
interfere.
S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 11.
EGYPT: B. C. 48-47.
Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy.
Intervention of Cæsar.
The rising against him.
The Romans besieged in Alexandria.
Their ruthless victory.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
EGYPT: B. C. 30.
Organized as a Roman province.
After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt
was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and
the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had
no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he
tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign
soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon
crushing nearer home. ... In due time he persuaded the senate
and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should
never be placed under the administration of any man of
superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be
allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the
supreme authority."
C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 29.
EGYPT: A. D. 100-500.
Roman and Christian.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415;
and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.
EGYPT: A. D. 296.
Revolt crushed by Diocletian.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.
The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian
conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt
itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time
of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued
by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that
impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the
Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels
of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from
the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia.
Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the
archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes
entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a
wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy
was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the
neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were
finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the
death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the
empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their
Persian garrisons.
E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
EGYPT: A. D. 640-646.
Moslem conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171.
Under the Fatimite Caliphs.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.
EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250.
Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.
See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.
EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220.
Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.
EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250.
The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.
EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.
The Mameluke Sultans.
The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The
word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and ... they
were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the
South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his
accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were
employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope
employs Swiss. ... Subsequently, however, Circassia became the
country which most largely furnished this class of troops.
Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were
taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then
followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed
to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle,
or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of
Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo],
and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time
devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they
neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became
degenerate and corrupt. ... The dynasty of Saladin ... was of
no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era.
{760}
Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of
the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in
Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of
the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who
married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany,
who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself
murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. ... Their
subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan
Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust,
murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from
power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or
six years. ... The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall
of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke
Dynasties constantly present."
A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 3-5.
EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517.
Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans.
Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST),
and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
Bonaparte's organization of government.
His victory at Aboukir.
His return to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST),
and 1799 (NOVEMBER).
EGYPT: A. D. 1800.
Discontent and discouragement of the French.
The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
Turkish defeat at Heliopolis.
Revolt crushed at Cairo.
Assassination of Kleber.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802.
Expulsion of the French by the English.
Restoration of the province to Turkey.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power.
His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.
"It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or
Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the
Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor
was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops
furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with
the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command
of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and
soon found himself an important factor in the confused
political position which followed the departure of the British
army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former
posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for
revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the
rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who
divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other
hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet
gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually
apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at
the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either
side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He
played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the
Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides,
but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the
anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at
last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be
persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805]
their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the
curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed
Mohammad 'Aly's election--for such it was--to the governorship
of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and
Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo,
laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan
Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured
their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an
indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for
weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from
Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote,
in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of
Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery
amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse)
Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the
citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of
Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was
everywhere disputed by the Beys. ... An attempt was made to
ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the
metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal
of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's
party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on
that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony,
inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive
them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The
dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without
any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their
Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the
suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city.
... They marched along the principal street for some distance,
with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with
apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the
Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar
and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party
continuing along the main street, and through the gate called
Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here
they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with
this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back
towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed;
and in that part of the main thoroughfare called
Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires.
Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the
collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder
fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the
city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in
the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the
alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who
escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A
horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the
Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they
were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were
slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were
dragged away. ... The wretched captives were then chained and
left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following
morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day
before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes.
{761}
One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were
released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put
to death in the course of the ensuing night. ... The Beys were
disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them
retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more
probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte
began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but
the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from
Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the
Turkish fleet sailed away. ... An attempt of the English
Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of
5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and
humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of
seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the
Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory
policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged
them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in
order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery
which finally uprooted the Memluk power. ... Early in the year
1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis
in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo
were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's
favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the
army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell
into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other
chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the
citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having
taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and
followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and
narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as
soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed
before them. The last of those who made their exit before the
gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops
their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all
the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by
another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses,
that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some
stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through
which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they
commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and
immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had
the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. ...
470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if
any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey.
According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and
alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall.
Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades,
and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate.
He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the
signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks
throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to
every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys
were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their
adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner,
and sacked their dwellings. ... The last of his rivals being
now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the
administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions
abroad."
S. Lane-Poole, Egypt, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution,
volume 2.
EGYPT: A. D. 1807.
Occupation of Alexandria by the English.
Disastrous failure of their expedition.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.
Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
Successes against the Turks.
Intervention of the Western Powers.
Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
Mehemet Ali and his successors.
The khedives.
The opening of the Suez Canal.
"By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European
Powers, ... his title to Egypt having been ... affirmed ...
Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the
social and material improvement of the country, with an
aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as
the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions
and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed
grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up
till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and
notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death
incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing
Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then
verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental
malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in
mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the
government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,
the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,
but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of
the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and
bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type--ignorant,
cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every
sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in
almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in
July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his
own slaves,--acting, it was variously said, on a secret order
from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To
Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable
and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief
done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence
and force of character required to carry on the great work
begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for
the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the
colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,
has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was
succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of
Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's
reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still
fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the
more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give
the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which
forms the main element of a problem that still confronts
Europe.
{762}
But, for this the same impartial judge will at least
equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his
extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at
ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical
justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress
of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of
railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved
the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the
country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native
industries. For so much, at least, history will give him
credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the
magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez
Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but
through which--as if by the irony of history--the first ship
that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic
of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal
character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,
crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private
relations. ... It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the
first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of
'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank
a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy
bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the
year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from
the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,--in
virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."
J. C. M'Coan, Egypt (National Life and Thought,
lecture 18).
J. C. M'Coan, Egypt under Ismail, chapter 1-4.
EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.
Conquest of the Soudan.
Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
The government of General Gordon.
Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.
In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance
to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central
Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command
of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and
received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which
he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make
Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to
Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission,
and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of
Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with
fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years
past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the
slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these
pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and
energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he
established over their territory a certain number of small
military settlements. ... Baker returned to Europe flattering
himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the
scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various
slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a
number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable
slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had
been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back
than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than
before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however,
was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means
the worst. ... Under European compulsion ... the Khedive
Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the
scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on
the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the
sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the
equatorial provinces under the administration of an European
officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of
repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced
by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a
brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained
high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for
his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This
was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who
was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon
Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in
1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American
officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin
Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants
Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. ...
Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto
been known, became the continual scene of military movements
and scientific excursions. ... The Soudan was so far conquered
as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed
along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. ...
In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he
was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years,
worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation
and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the
jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by
the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's
Government had sent to support him, he consented to return
again to his post; this time with the title of
Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial
Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the
Government palace at Khartoum. ... Egyptian authority, allied
with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be
taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo
Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could
reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area
of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense.
Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the
Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were
such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as
lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts
watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right
away to the confines of Wadai. ... Unfortunately in 1879
Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the
Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the
country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy,
disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at
Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period
been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to
the front. ... It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded
Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his
subordinates--Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been
placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey,
an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the
Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of
Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the
Mahdi appeared on the scene.
{763}
Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred,
the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by
many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early
age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth,
a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly
aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled
several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney,
the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861.
Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful
order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes
for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His
proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi
Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five
months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode
upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum,
where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of
his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually
gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but
followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as
well as powerful. ... Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed
that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his
plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as
'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of
Islam to come and join him at Abba. ... Convinced that it was
impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues
of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf
Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him
to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched
to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed
were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black
soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and
they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of
a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah,
wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could
rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of
followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many,
put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault
was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a
retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan.
Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition
of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to
secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A
further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda
with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more
melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay
stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around
him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry,
escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news.
The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense
excitement spreading throughout the Soudan.... Meantime the
Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt
sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops
overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the
town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to
El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the
following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time
numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left
Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with
no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. ...
And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger
for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act
for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under
the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service
who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December
1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the
desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance
on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had
fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his
headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks,
but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking
El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in
amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic
fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a
force five or six times their superior in numbers, and
completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European
staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the
dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy.
Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to
Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated
for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a
rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants,
occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded
Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another,
two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief
of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between
Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this
time had risen so high that it threatened not only to
overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become
the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."
A. J. Wauters, Stanley's Emin Pasha Expedition, chapter 1-2.
ALSO IN:
Major R. F. Wingate, Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan,
books 1-4.
Colonel Sir. W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon,
chapters 5-6.
A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapters 10-15.
EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882.
Bankruptcy of the state.
English and French control of finances.
Native hostility to the foreigners.
Rebellion, led by Arabi.
English bombardment of Alexandria.
"The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged
extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and
the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices
were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in
1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to
ninety-eight millions. ... The European capitalists obtained
for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really
not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued
at low rates. ... The interest on these borrowed millions was
punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found
that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British
government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to
examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at
twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed
at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of
consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took
the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of
these usurious demands.
{764}
The debt, although under their control, and therefore
secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in
premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to
something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English
consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the
jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also
established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners
against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal
gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his
private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the
creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the
Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive
pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to
act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on
Egyptian finances--M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank,
for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England.
These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the
finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all
independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to
resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order
to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was
afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the
National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European
commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. ...
Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of
the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and
later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the
Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances.
Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued
at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight
per cent. nett. ... But to be able to pay the creditors their
full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national
expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and
the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many
classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a
fanatical hatred of race against race. ... In consequence of
all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers,
and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves
into a National party, with the object of resisting the
oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by
the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate
officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February,
1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the
National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who
installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of
this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the
beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the
reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired
and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his
present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now
dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed,
consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as
Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry
of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed
by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The
western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and
demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June,
1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and
his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. ... The new Khedive,
with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his
ministry and the organization of his finances to the western
Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of
the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch
over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted
forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the
entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were
embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further
reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw
a large number out of employment. ... Many acts of military
insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November,
1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. ... Ahmed
Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public
notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly
rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled
to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the
further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army,
and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however,
did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian
party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more
reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted
great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. ... A
pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he
dexterously used to increase his popularity. ... Twenty-six
officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the
Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the
sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This
leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to
the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming
Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister
without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon
afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers.
... This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the
May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European
Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads
would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of
the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was
realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet
of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of
Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and
the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. ...
The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more
apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. ... On
the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the
Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in
favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. ... On the 3rd of June,
Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had
sailed from Constantinople. ... His object was to pacify Egypt
and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. ... Since the
publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha
as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the
actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen
the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. ...
{765}
The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the
remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of
the works. ... Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria
on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter,
plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. ... Though the
disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of
foreigners was the result. ... On the 22nd a commission,
consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans ... began to try
the ringleaders of the riot. ... But events were hurrying on
towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the
fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral
received information that the entrance to the harbour would be
blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be
an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of
the Suez canal was also discovered. ... The English, on their
side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi,
while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready
for resistance. ... On the 27th the English vice-consul
advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the
3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for
war were complete. ... Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th
showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the
English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar
Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and
surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the
bombardment at four the next morning. ... As the French
government were unable to take part in any active measures (a
grant for that purpose having been refused by the National
Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral
Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other
nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the
harbour of Alexandria. ... On the evening of the 10th of July
... and at daybreak on the 11th, the ... ironclads took up the
positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the
east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships
were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the
Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. ... The first shot
fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the
Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the
Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement
became general. ... At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up
by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock
the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the
guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from
their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi
had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines
was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike
and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the
Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew
it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half
an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30
the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were
repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. ... The English
casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a
comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. ...
At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by
the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary
measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to
the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were
fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the
city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames
were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware
that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time
for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army.
Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other
nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen.
But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined
soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed
many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said,
'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"
H. Vogt, The Egyptian War of 1882, pages 2-32.
ALSO IN:
J. C. McCoan, Egypt under Ismail, chapter 8-10.
C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapter 1-20.
Khedives and Pashas.
C. F. Goodrich, Report on British Military and Naval
Operations in Egypt, 1882, part 1.
EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.
The massacre and destruction in Alexandria.
Declared rebellion of Arabi.
Its suppression by the English.
Banishment of Arabi.
English occupation.
The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage,
massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder.
It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and
burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings
surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and
left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand
Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with
all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the
afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had
occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The
admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by
some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly
without excuse. ... The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th,
and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next
day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed
to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was
escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong
guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who
had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention
was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of
Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of
Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people.
... The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people,
but he was regarded as the tool of England. ... From the
moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the
real ruler of the people. ... The conference at Constantinople
was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It
presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the
dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt.
But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian
in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and
the unbeliever. ... In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed
upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and
discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a
counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a
traitor to his people and his religion.
{766}
Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord
Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced
to the conference that England was about to send an expedition
to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the
authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that
he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin
feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that
the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a
rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of
incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare
Arabi a rebel. ... In his desperation, he sent a force of
3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in
readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. ... In the
meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt
and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the
diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. ... It was
not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived
with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only
two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian
interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by
Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about
70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The
objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush
Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways
of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the
Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many
objections to the former route. ... The Suez canal was
supposed to be neutral water. ... But England felt no
obligation to recognize any neutrality, ... acting upon the
principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of
any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can
place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In
other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of
the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound
secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. ... On the
19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to
attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night,
they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that
the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral
Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the
troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at
Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation.
The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the
Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie
to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed
necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further
advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of
some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here
the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while
organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi
opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and
Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at
once before the British transports could come up with the
advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and
the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at
Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss
upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were
made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become
convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained
in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at
Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. ... It was
therefore decided to make the approach under cover of
darkness. ... At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General
Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting
of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty
field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so
accurately was the movement conducted that the leading
brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within
two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley)
were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of
their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized
our close proximity to their works.' ... The intrenchments
were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians
fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were
bayoneted at their posts. ... But what could the rank and file
accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but
hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and
his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis,
where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other
officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the
same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and
at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and
the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded,
and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the
fortifications. ... A proof of the completeness of the success
was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of
soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of
Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with
the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. ... 'Major-General Lowe was
ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. ...
General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just
outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The
cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. ... A
message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the
city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did
unconditionally.' ... Before leaving England, Wolseley had
predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September;
but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and
Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood
alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the
intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations
regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord
Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and
announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish
force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared
to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne
the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the
influence her success had given her. And it was for the
interest of Egypt that she should not. ... England's first
duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the
British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it
was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's
authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. ...
{767}
What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount
interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established
and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to
themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. ... But
England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial.
... It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before
a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to
plead their cause. ... The trial was a farce. Everything was
'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to
plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be
condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was
immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In
fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the
court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. ... On the 26th of
December Arabi and his six companions ... upon whom the same
sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon,
there to spend their life of perpetual exile. ... Lord
Dufferin ... had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early
in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of
governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of
legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat
altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in
its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive.
The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies:
the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the
'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one
for each province. ... Every Egyptian man, over twenty years
of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from
the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the
'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were
to form the constituency that should elect the provincial
council. ... The scheme for reorganization was carried forward
to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in
September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such
disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive
considered it unwise to put the new institutions into
operation. In place of legislative council and general
assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting
of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The
reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending
troubles and dangers in the Sudan."
J. E. Bowen, The Conflict of East and West
in Egypt, chapter 5-6.
ALSO IN:
Colonel J. F. Maurice, Military History of
the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt.
C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapter 22-44.
EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum.
The town beleaguered by the Mahdists.
English rescue expedition.
The energy that was too late.
"The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British
Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating
the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. ...
Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January,
1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the
military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it
might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian
garrisons and for the safety of the European population in
Khartoum. ... He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. ...
Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian
Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. ...
Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. ... While
Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to
the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual
evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would
very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark
on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be
caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,--'Even if I was mean enough
to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this
forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days
communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although
subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian
tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages
exceedingly uncertain. ... Long before the summer of 1884, it
was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become
so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could
only be by the despatch of a British force. ... Early in May,
war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of
the month the military authorities in Cairo received
instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an
expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000
camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for
a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a
half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady
Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were
occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers
were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the
cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was
not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House
of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the
Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon.
... It was agreed that there were but two routes by which
Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of
the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. ... The Nile
route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale
were begun. ... It was at first arranged that not more than
5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number
was raised to 7,000. ... The instructions given to Lord
Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was
to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that
purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of
any kind were to be undertaken."
C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, 1882-1885,
volume 2, chapter 12-18.
"First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates
of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of
February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of
March. ... Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the
regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most
expeditiously and with least damage to boats. ... He also
dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to
Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted
Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th
Hussars, acting as scouts--numbering about 1,100 in all--set
out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100
miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy.
{768}
The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was
achieved with perfect success. ... On the 17th January Sir
Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and
after defeating some 10,000 Arabs--collected from Berber,
Metemneh, and Omdurman--pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells.
His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at
Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men--of attacking when thirst
and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force--were at all
points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were
65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded,
with 9 officers killed--among them Colonel Burnaby--and 9
wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile.
He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if
possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench
himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of
Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said
to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a
zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in
the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert,
of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the
column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu
Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of
charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so
terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly
served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged;
and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime
Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he
found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic
message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' ...
In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the
true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for
years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before
Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and
that what he really meant was that he had come to his last
biscuit. The message--which was written for the enemy--was
dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on
January 28, just a month after its despatch. ... The public,
carefully kept in ignorance ... and hopeful beyond their wont,
were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in
the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."
A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon,
volume 2, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
H. M. Stanley, In Darkest Africa, chapter 1.
Colonel H. E. Colvile, History of the Soudan Campaign.
Colonel C. W. Wilson, From Korti to Khartoum.
Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, The Campaign of the Cataracts.
W. M. Pimblett, The Story of the Soudan War.
Gen. C. G. Gordon, Journals at Khartoum.
H. W. Gordon, Events in the Life of
Charles George Gordon, chapter 14-20.
EGYPT: A. D. 1893.
The reigning khedive.
Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his
son Abbas, born in 1874.
Statesman's Year-book, 1893.
----------EGYPT: End----------
EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.
EGYPTIAN TALENT.
See TALENT.
EIDGENOSSEN.
The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is
often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the
members of the Swiss Confederation/
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a
corruption of the same term.
EIGHT SAINTS OF WAR, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
EIKON BASILIKE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
EION, Siege and capture of (B. C. 470).
See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
EIRE.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
EKKLESIA.
See ECCLESIA.
EKOWE, Defence of (1879).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1870.
ELAGABALUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 218-222.
ELAM.
"Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between
the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest
son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was
known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the
name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."
M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 1.
About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an
Elamite invasion--an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal,
and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and
desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid
of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest.
Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern
Chaldea. ... This is the first time we meet authentic
monumental records of a country which was destined through the
next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly
hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria,
until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under
Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the
whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan
(afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own
original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock,
its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. ...
Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both
from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which
means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' ... One of
Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not
content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam.
He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship
of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis--which calls him
Chedorlaomer--is the only document we have descriptive of this
king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of
it, ... Khudur-Lagamar ... lived, according to the most
probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."
Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4.
It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the
records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great
was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he
acquired his later dominions, by conquest.
See PERSIA, B. C. 549-521.
See, also, BABYLONIA.
EL ARISH, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ELBA: A. D. 1735.
Ceded to Spain by Austria.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
ELBA: A. D. 1802.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
ELBA: A. D. 1814.
Napoleon in exile.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL),
and (APRIL-JUNE).
{i}
APPENDIX A.
NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.
To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of
every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the
stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and
customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the
basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated
to a subordinate place.
The "language" test is of course subject to very serious
limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general
to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless
been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of
linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases
where both the civilization and language of one people have
become lost in that of another the test must of course fail
utterly.
With all these restrictions however the adoption of the
linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically
universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is
the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where
successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points
wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely
admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established
are unassailable by any other school of criticism.
Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the
subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division:
the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in
the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may
be safely accepted as fact.
The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its
central feature the Indo-Germanic (Indo-European)
or Aryan race. The distinction between the races clearly
Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division
of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the
Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at
the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded
the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe
in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, pre-Aryan,
Aryan, non-Aryan, affords the key to the historical
development of European ethnology.
PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.
Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the
Iberians occupy easily the first place. The seat of this
people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France;
their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They
are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial
characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places
them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the
volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of
the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns
to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the
modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in
"Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to
include also the Bretons of the north west. It is clear
however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic:
made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles
during the fifth century.
To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every
foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding
races is due the survival to the present day of their
descendants, the Basques.
The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and
Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people
in every age. Here the Cantabri successfully resisted the
Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the
remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the
last years of Augustus. While the Iberian race as a whole
has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin
intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The
present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of
Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French
department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost
in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of
the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong
likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning
these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration
from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the
connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the
one stated.)
Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of
Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the
pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded
as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is
conjecture.
ARYAN PEOPLES.
In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to
mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally
enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the Sanskrit
(Hindoo), Zend (Persian), Greek, Latin, Celtic,
Germanic and Slavic. To these may be added two others
not definitely classified, the Albanian and the
Lithuanian. These bear the closest affinity respectively
to the Latin and the Slavic.
Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern
us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The
vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning
their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this
subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best
view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max
Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor
A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).
{ii}
Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two
do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the
Latin, Germanic and Slavic form by great
odds the bulk of the European population.
THE LATIN BRANCH.
The Latin countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and
the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the
Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can
be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As
Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of
different races: the Iapygians and Oenotrians of
the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek
settlers; the Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians and
Oscans in the centre; the Etruscans on the west
shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the
Gauls in the valley of the Po, with the Ligurians
and Venetians respectively on the west and east coasts. Of
this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to
the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the
growing power of Rome.
The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by
the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the
West-Roman Empire.
This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin
countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and
finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in
Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over
two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression,
and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character
of the Italian peninsula.
In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman
conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is
best described as Celt-Iberian. Upon this population the
Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that
reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of
Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the
ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The Gothic
kingdom of Spain (418-714) and the Suevic kingdom of
northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a
trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be
dismissed so lightly.
Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire
country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight
centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest
their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure
Aryan stock has never been effaced.
The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided
into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is
geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the
Celtic blending with the Iberian; in the northeast the
Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are
strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in
the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli"
are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing
for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description
of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present
day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of
ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.
The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin
stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined
siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated
to undergo.
In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown;
the Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness
never overthrown at all.
In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic
element in the Scandinavian Norman. Over all these outside
elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed.
While the Franks have imposed their name upon the natives,
the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the
invaders.
The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in
the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line
running east and west through the centre of France marks the
division between the French and the Provençal dialects,
the langued'oil and the langued'oc. It is south of
this line in the country of the langued'oc that the Latin
or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.
In the northeast, on the other hand, in the Walloon
provinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic
times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.
Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of
its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The
Albanians (Skipetars) and the Roumans
(Vlachs or Wallachs) represent as nearly as
ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of
Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely
uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of
their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some
southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an
entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have
been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic
races in the seventh century.
The Albanian migrations of the time penetrated Attica,
Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the Slavs and
Vlachs they formed indeed a great part of the population
of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have
since been merged in the native Greek population, and the
Vlachs have almost entirely disappeared from these
southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater
tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent
one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica
and Argolis.
The Roumans or Vlachs, the supposed native
population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the
Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present
the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on
the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.
Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting
study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous
Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic
Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally
abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's
"Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)
{iii}
The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is
probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south
of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the
present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and
West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.
In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans
was an important one, and to this day they still linger in
considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For
a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History
of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)
THE GERMANIC BRANCH.
The Germanic nations of modern Europe are England,
Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The
Germanic races also form the major part of the population of
Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and
appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.
Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of
the West scarcely a trace remains.
The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history
furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan
Ivernians (the possible Iberians of the British
Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and
Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two
divisions, the Goidels or Gaels and the
Britons.
In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did
not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact
the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of
the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic
element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the
Germanic races, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from
the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of
extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the
British Isles only in Wales and the western portions of
Scotland and Ireland. The invasions of the
Danes, and later the Norman conquest, bringing with
them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have
produced in England no marked modification of the Saxon
stock.
The German Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms,
Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of
the Germanic peoples of the continent.
During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman
Empire the Germanic peoples were grouped much further
westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction
involving the dispossession of the Slavic peoples on the
Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of
Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division,
Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands
north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which
the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses
the Flemish, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is
about equally divided between the Flemish and the
Walloon. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is
encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in
the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same,
the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form
also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern
Italy.
The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively
Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic Poles of Posen,
Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant
of the Wends of Lusatia and the French element in the
recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond
the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian
territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in
isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the
Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century
and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia.
On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the Scandinavian
branch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find
another and non-Aryan race, the Lapps. On the other hand a
remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast
line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.
THE SLAVIC BRANCH.
The Slavs, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear
in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the
Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed
at nearly one hundred million souls.
At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all
modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples,
beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the
course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the
Polabic, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the
German, and, barring the remnant of Wends in Lusatia (the
Sorabi or Northern Serbs), have disappeared
entirely from ethnic geography.
The great Slavic nation of the present day is Russia, but
the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the
considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders
impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.
The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical
conditions, into three great divisions: the Eastern, the
Western and the Southern. The greatest of these
divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of
the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as
follows: The Great Russians occupying the vast inland
territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions,
the Little Russians inhabiting the entire south of Russia
from Poland to the Caspian, and the White Russians, the
least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk,
the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.
The West Slavic group, omitting names of peoples now
extinct, are the Poles, Slovaks, Czechs and the remnants
of the Lusatian Wends. The Poles, excepting those
already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian
Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under
the sovereignty of Austria are the Slovaks, Moravians and
Czechs of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as
historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having
appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth
century.
{iv}
In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to
the Lithuanians whose history, despite the racial
difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their
present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and
Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.
The South Slavic peoples were isolated from their northern
kinsmen by the great Finno-Tatar invasions.
The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove
like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the
southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman
Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic
invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these
Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in
connection with the Finno-Tatar invasions which caused
them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic
changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era.
During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants
spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus
and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a
separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save
and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states
(Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they
may be classed in three divisions. The Bulgarians, so
called from the Finno-Tatar people whom they absorbed
while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the
separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a
considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and
Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly
corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the
peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the
subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The
second division includes the Servians, Montenegrans,
Bosnians and Croatians, the last two under Austrian
control; the third and smallest are the Slovenes of
Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's
"Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the
early history and also comparative ethnology of the
Slavs.)
The territory occupied by the Greek speaking people is
clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is
the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest
hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories
immediately adjoining, the Greek population overwhelmingly
preponderates.
Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in
Attica and Argolis, a Vlach element in Epirus while the
Turk himself still lingers in certain quarters of
Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive
migrations of the Middle Ages. The Slavs, who also figured
most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece
as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic
admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful
source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the
question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.
NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.
The Non-Aryan peoples on the soil of modern Europe,
excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already
placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the
Finno-Tatar or Ural-Altaic family, and all,
possibly excepting the Finns, date their arrival in Europe
from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal
divisions of this race, the Ugric, Finnic, Turkic and
Mongolic, all have their European representatives.
Of the first the only representatives are the Hungarians
(Magyars). The rift between the North and South Slavic
peoples opened by the Huns in the fifth century, reopened
and enlarged by the Avars in the sixth, was finally
occupied by their kinsmen the Magyars in the ninth. The
receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the Magyars
in utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a
natural consequence that they have been the only one of the
Ural-Altaic peoples to accept the religion and
civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St.
Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not
altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of
Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.
More closely allied to the Magyars than to their more
immediate neighbors of the same race are the Finnic stems
of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole
northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually
displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by
their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the
Ehsts and Tschudes of Ehstland, the Finns
and Karelians of Finland, the Tscheremissians of
the upper Volga, the Siryenians in the basin of the
Petchora and the Lapps in northern Scandinavia and along
the shores of the Arctic ocean.
East of the Lapps, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie
the Samojedes, a people forming a distinct branch of the
Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic
peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known
indifferently as Tatar (Tartar) or Turk,
has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical
geography rather than race divergence been separated into two
great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly
comprised under the specific name of Tartar; and the
southern, the Turk.
These are the latest additions to the European family of races.
The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia occurred as late as
the thirteenth century, while the Turks did not gain their
first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until
1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in
Asia-Minor.
Barring the Armenians, the Georgians of the
northeast, the Greeks of the seacoast and the scattered
Circassians, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.
In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great
figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were
always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they
occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical
inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day
there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the
Turkish population actually predominates; their general
distribution is clearly shown on the map.
{v}
The Tartars or Russian Turks represent the siftings
of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.
Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count
scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their
former Slavic subjects.
The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over
the south and east. Prominent among them are the Crim
Tartars, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the
Caspian, the Kirghis of the north shore and Ural valley,
and the Bashkirs between the upper Ural and the Volga,
with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes
south of the Caucasus.
The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been
commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership,
though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia
proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol
people however, the Kalmucks, did make their way into
Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and
the lower Volga.
The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part
of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian
seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races
between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the
Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find
a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each
other.
To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose
ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in
three general divisions however they are as follows: the
so-called Circassians who formerly occupied the whole
western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who,
since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part
emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the
Lesghians, under which general name are included the
motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the
Georgians, the supposed descendants of the ancient
Iberians of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope,
including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on
the southeast coast of the Black sea.
The Tartars are hardly found in the Caucasus though they
reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura
and the Araxes. Here also appear the various Iranian stems
of the Asiatic Aryans, the Armenians, the Persians
and the Kurds.
R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general
authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and
otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's
"Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den
Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's
"Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients,"
Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der
Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des
europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der
europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom
österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder
und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas
(Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."
A. C. Reiley.
{vi}
APPENDIX B.
NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA.
(TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)
There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose
historical geography has a greater present interest than the
Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the
Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed
one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which
constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the
present age.
Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a
number of separate and diminutive national entities, the
Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian and Montenegrin, the
Greek and Albanian, all struggling desperately to
establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish
Empire.
What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting
struggles for separate national existence it is out of our
province to forecast.
It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible
light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of
the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine
maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth
century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in
the entire history of this region. The most intricate it
certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity
arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from
the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history
which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its
purely transitionary character, but also from the several
national movements which during this time were diligently at
work.
During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from
their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of
course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great
empire.
The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these
regions passed under the rule of the Turk. These four maps
treat of that most interesting period intervening between the
crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That
in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has
repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation,
is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.
What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most
interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the
Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out
their full national development, either federately or
independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is
threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire,
is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the
mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is
now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate
national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live.
The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended
in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may
perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same
national spirit.
THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the
twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation
as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the
Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in
itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the
offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman
Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which
had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography,
external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical
contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations.
It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most
vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and
more closely to the ethnic limits of the Greek nation. The
later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek
Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national
consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of
this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the
nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and
venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth
century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the
Byzantine Empire by the Turks, but it was the Crusaders,
not the Turks, who overthrew the first empire. In one view
this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no
transition period whose study would be productive of such
fruitful results.
Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the
Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was
enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor
from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the
prelude to final disaster.
Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the
Greeks were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin
Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original
crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from
Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek
Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191.
Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian
intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine
Empire (1204).
{vii}
This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also
ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in
Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from
it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be
seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the
thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the
establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the
place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the
Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of
Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of
Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of
Achaia.
Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power:
in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of
Nicæa and Trebizond.
The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's
notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development,
either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They
were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling
population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a
people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous.
Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they
resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a
time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims
its own.
Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and
immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom
of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222;
the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek
Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the
principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the
Morea in 1430.
The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long
enough to fall at last before the Turkish conquest. The
Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were
destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and
partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a
somewhat longer life.
To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the
achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event
of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been
employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete
restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire
as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the
greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race.
The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea.
In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon
began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople
and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement
of the fourteenth century the Turks, having thrown off the
Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their
final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of
the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but
over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of
their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There
remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever
separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to
work.
THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.
It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the
national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the
evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of
the Danube.
The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh
century of the great southward migration of the Slavic
peoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the
strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had
hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods,
notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel
(976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the
Empire itself. These Slavic states had, however, been
subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the
eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of
independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of
the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that
their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian
kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between
the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic
discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely
Slavic is well established, for the great and singular
revival of the Vlach or Rouman peoples and their
movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats
north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this
age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the
Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as
Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also
north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are
known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still
the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube
is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of
the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably
advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")
At the present day this movement has been so long completed that
scarcely the trace of Vlach population remains in the
lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in
passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the
creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a
momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The
dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to
make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time
that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of
overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of
Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the
reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople,
in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its
importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the
Mongols.
SERVIA.
In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a
period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered
its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.
{viii}
Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it
enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since
fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored
Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period
of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest
that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European
possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have
come under other conditions, but already another and greater
enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in
1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his
entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the
East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek
Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish
dominion.
THE VLACHS.
Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national
manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this
period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in
one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the
Vlachs. This Latin population, which ethnologists
have attempted to identify with the ancient Thracians,
was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular
groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth
century their great northward migration began. A single result of
this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second
Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence
was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of
the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia,
and the growth of a Vlach population in the Transylvanian
lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great
part the political geography of the present day.
The process of this evolution may be understood from a
comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the
Cumanians, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth
century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or
Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the
Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map
of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this
exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was
thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the Vlachs
north of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality
of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of
the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a
long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.
Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in
1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols,
between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities
of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century
dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened,
however, towards the close of the century and after a period of
shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a
time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period
of permanent Turkish supremacy.
With the presence and influence of the Vlachs south of the
Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their
subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct
connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they
still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an
independent state, was in the country east of the range of
Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the
principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of
the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).
This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it
was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine
Empire.
ALBANIANS.
The Skipetars (Albanians) during this period appear
to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national
existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall
of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever
independence existed in the northern section was lost in the
revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of
the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George
Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg,
created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of
Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from
Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and
the basin of the Drin (see map IV).
It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control
was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.
THE TURKISH CONQUEST.
The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final
conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save.
The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map
IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in
Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the
Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall
brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of
Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460),
Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and
Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia
(1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district
immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro,
situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first
Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the
height of the Turkish domination.
The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest
after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won
during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder
ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all
her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the
superiority over the Crim Tartars, Wallachia, Moldavia and
Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the
subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy
of the Ottoman conqueror.
The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish
conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The
repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though
with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of
Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of
the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical
analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is
attempted.
{ix}
The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of
course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the
purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy
than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the
national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves,
have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply
to show that the four separate national movements, the
Greek, the Slavic, the Rouman, and the
Albanian, which may be said to have created the present
Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two
last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period
just traversed.
In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been
so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be
looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient
existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed
in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for
the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of
Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is
Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical
works see the general bibliography of historical geography.
A. C. Reiley.
{x}
APPENDIX C.
NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)
The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement
of great political and geographical questions. These questions
resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the
political forces of the present age,--the first, represented in
the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the
awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns
historical geography only incidentally, but the second has
already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our
time.
RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.
Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of
central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy
and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary,
the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and
if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse
conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at
least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the
present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of
the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more
complicated than the others, and which, so far from being
settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This
reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has
been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no
doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated
by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps
(1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national
movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves
during this period. These movements, feeble in their character,
were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of
this power in the present century these forces once more have
opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the
Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.
The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the
eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774),
Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia
(1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while
Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered
practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the
Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.
THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.
All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power,
did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the
Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the
actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have
begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign
of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most
unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under
Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the
present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the
recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in
the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution
(1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination,
had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work
was undone by the intervention of the great powers.
The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of
England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in
the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first
time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of
Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave
to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the
treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous
under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22,
1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of
Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece
was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though
the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed
to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of
Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833,
after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was
again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the
March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years
bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the
gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George
I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration
since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and
in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the
present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of
Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a
further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.
THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.
A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the
Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats
sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali,
pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan
himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the
present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the
practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet
still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy
to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between
Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the
history of European Turkey.
{xi}
Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and
the final issue of the rival interests struggling at
Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July,
1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the
interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In
outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive
alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange
for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the
Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this
treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian
predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent
sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as
it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter
prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839)
compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi
while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of
rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855)
struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events
of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not,
as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's
ascendency.
THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.
The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to
dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire--a
policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and
Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on
this question,--Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while
England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with
the northern power.
By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary
struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople
(1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken
from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty
powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years
before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private
Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into
a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the
powers (March 13, 1871).
Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the
congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied
powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple
Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire.
They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a
Turkish crisis for another twenty years.
The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth
of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of
both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this
name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a
common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a
new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single
assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and
finally crowned as king in 1881.
THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.
The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in
the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These
provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro
and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation
almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a
settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of
fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all
these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in
Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious
massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on
Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily
victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by
compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the
representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in
a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire,
which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia,
Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently
embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31,
1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined
to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately
declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror
excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered
policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies,
and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the
sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still
recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish
resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the
Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an
armistice was granted.
Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to
herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public
opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to
the Bosporus.
By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey
recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and
Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had
just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal
Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe,
which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the
portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro
received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on
the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier
assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the
territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the
Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a
vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania,
approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of
the Chalcidice.
It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the
interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An
ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror
and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the
Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but
before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great
Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of
negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.
{xii}
By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the
disputed points--chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian
seaboard on the Ægean--and the congress of Berlin then assembled
(June 13-July 13, 1878).
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.
Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of
Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty
of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the
Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the
cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation
was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus
to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more
important provision was the transfer of the administrative
control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria.
This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between
Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year,
by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the
Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria,
despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the
sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed
to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September
of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil
the control of the island of Cyprus.
The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the
complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian
principality. This result was achieved through the agency of
Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of
San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the
Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of
a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed
entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy
local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a
new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy,
although under the military authority of the Sultan.
The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the
Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this
triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent
events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the
new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of
Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by
so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have
foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the
Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but
from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent
himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had
for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The
determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans
continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly
all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by
maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has
been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one
event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well
to illustrate this fact.
LATER CHANGES.
In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially
undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations
between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a
conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which
Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian
prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through
the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and
other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact
exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the
Bulgarian people was more generally understood.
The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance
thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar
compensation, but were both foiled.
Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a
short war (Nov.-Dec. 1885), and Greece was checked in her
aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense
of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of
1886.
Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old
lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced
to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his
successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und
his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully
preserved its autonomy.
THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.
A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may
be briefly given. The non-Turkish populations of European
Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into
four groups: the Roumans or Vlachs, the
Greeks, the Albanians and the Slavs. The
process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present
century, has given among these people the following separate
states. The Vlachs are represented in the present kingdom
of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the Greeks are
represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of
the house of Denmark; while the Slavs are represented by
three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg,
Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little
principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never
yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is
likewise native.
The Albanians alone of the four races, owing in part,
perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of
Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for
separate national existence.
To these peoples, under any normal process of development,
belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time
has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered
on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by
the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors,
Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing
claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which
these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future
was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.
{xiii}
It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of
the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and
even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the
Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding
between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this
danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested
and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of
possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity
of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria,
under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of
Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable
conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the
next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act
independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria
possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from
any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which
is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still
greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint,
have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated
population of European Turkey. The unliberated Greek
population predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian
peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace
and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of
the Bulgarian people conform almost exactly to the
boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The
creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic
Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in
1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would
hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of
the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national
claim, the Greeks and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs
to what remains of European Turkey.
These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely
indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question
permitted a natural settlement.
Concerning the Turks themselves a popular fallacy has ever
been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an
important division of the subject intrudes itself.
In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly
preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever
threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great
concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of
this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only
legitimate title. The Turkish population in Thrace and the
Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its
continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman
Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and
final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe
at the present day.)
The historical geography of the Balkans during the present
century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even
from the current literature of the subject. The best purely
geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by
Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe,"
and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford
excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of
the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's
"History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or
less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an
end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The
Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe,"
the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's
"Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical
geography.
A. C. Reiley.
{xiv}
APPENDIX D.
NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.
The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so
distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the
reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of
treatment.
The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the
statement of purely political conditions.
This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact
portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this
method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or
social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people
rather than the exact extent of their race or their government,
must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is
concerned, comparatively intangible.
Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a
subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one
condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in
its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.
The map which treats a subject in its historical development has
the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this
advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and
proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map
there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes
before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points
evident, but with their relation to external facts often
obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one
particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A
progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect
picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what
precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as
the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible
nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with
its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These
observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of
cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes
that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of
treatment.
The central feature in the early development of Christianity is
soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city
until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this
spread was continued from people to people until it became the
religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this
crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke
criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to
the second period be open to some question; but within the limits
of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms,
indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.
THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.
During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the
Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or
province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early
as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire
which does not number some Christians in its population. The
subject of the historical geography of the Christian church
during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the
locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found.
On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement.
It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the
suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not
and cannot contain.
Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division
attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and
"post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation.
Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100),
our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the
Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the
post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research,
although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as
inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D.
Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the
persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in
the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been
definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as
follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443).
Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of
these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in
available cartographic form.
It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the
author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of
space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The
attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the
more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the
least dispute.
The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon
the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A
special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to
mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special
activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we
have as centres in Apostolic times Jerusalem, Antioch,
Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth; in
post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates
special and limited notices, we may name Alexandria, Edessa,
Rome and Carthage.
The city of Rome contains a Christian community in
Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre,
prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable
historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar
position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the
map.
{xv}
CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.
The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the
accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The
attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period
would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.
The exact time of the advent of the Christian-Roman world it is
indeed impossible to define with precision. The Empire after the
time of Constantine was predominantly Christian, yet paganism
still lingered in formidable though declining strength. A map of
religions designed to explain this period, even with unlimited
historical material, could hardly be executed by any system, for
the result could be little better than a chaos, the fragments of
the old religion everywhere disappearing or blending with the
new. The further treatment of the growth of Christianity by
cities or churches is now impossible; for the rapid increase of
the latter has carried the subject into details and intricacies
where it cannot be followed: on the other hand, to describe the
Roman world in the fourth century as a Christian world would be
taking an unwarranted liberty with the plain facts of history.
The last feeble remnants of paganism were in fact burned away in
the fierce heat of the barbaric invasions of the fifth century.
After that time we can safely designate the former limits of the
Roman Empire as the Christian world. From this point we can
resume the subject of church expansion by the "second method"
indicated at the head of this article. But concerning the
transition period of the fourth and fifth centuries, from the
time Christianity is predominant in the Roman world until it
becomes the sole religion of the Roman world, both methods fail
us and the map can tell us practically nothing.
BARBARIANS OF THE INVASION.
Another source of intricacy occurring at this point should not
escape notice. It was in the fourth century that Christianity
began its spread among the barbarian Teutonic nations north of
the Danube. The Goths, located on the Danube, between the
Theiss and the Euxine, were converted to Christianity, in the
form known as Arianism, by the missionary bishop Ulphilas, and
the faith extended in the succeeding century to many other
confederations of the Germanic race. This fact represented, for a
time, the Christianization, whole or partial, of some peoples
beyond the borders of the Empire. With the migrations of the
fifth and sixth centuries, however, these converts, without
exception, carried their new faith with them into the Empire, and
their deserted homes, left open to new and pagan settlers, simply
became the field for the renewed missionary effort of a later
age. It is a historical fact, from a cartographic standpoint a
fortunate one, that, with all the geographic oscillations of this
period between Christianity and paganism, the Christian world
finally emerged with its boundaries conforming, with only a few
exceptions, to the former frontiers of the Roman Empire.
Whether or not this is a historical accident it nevertheless
gives technical accuracy from the geographic standpoint to the
statement that Christianity first made the conquest of the Roman
world; from thence it went out to complete the conquest of
Europe.
CONVERSION OF EUROPE.
With the view, as afforded on the map, of the extent of
Christianity at the commencement of the seventh century, we have
entered definitely upon the "second method." Indeed, in Ireland,
Wales and Scotland, where the Celtic church has already put forth
its missionary effort, the method has, in point of date, been
anticipated; but this fact need cause no confusion in treatment.
Henceforth the spread of Christianity is noted as it made its way
from "people to people." At this point, however, occurs the
greatest intangibility of the subject. The dates given under each
country represent, as stated in the key to the map, "the
approximate periods of conversion." It is not to be inferred,
however, that Christianity was completely unknown in any of these
countries prior to the periods given, or that the work of
conversion was in each case entirely completed within the time
specified. But it is an absolute necessity to give some
definiteness to these "periods of conversion"; to assign with all
distinctness possible the time when each land passed from the
list of pagan to the list of Christian nations. The dates marking
the limits to these periods are perhaps chosen by an arbitrary
method. The basis of their selection, however, has been almost
invariably some salient point, first in the introduction and
finally in the general acceptance of the Christian faith. In
order that the reader may possess the easy means of independent
opinion or critical judgment, the explanation is appended of the
dates thus used, concerning which a question might legitimately
arise.
Goths.
Converted to Arian Christianity by Ulphilas, 341-381.
These dates cover the period of the ministry of Ulphilas,
whose efforts resulted in the conversion of the great body of
the Danubian Goths. He received his ordination and entered
upon his work in 341, and died at Constantinople in 381. (See
C. A. A. Scott's "Ulfilas.")
Suevi, Burgundians and Lombards.
These people, like the Goths, passed from paganism through the
medium of Arian Christianity to final Orthodoxy. Concerning
the first process, it is possible to establish nothing, save
that these Teutonic peoples appeared in the Empire in the
fifth century as professors of the Arian faith. The exact time
of the acceptance of this faith is of less consequence. The
second transition from Arianism to Orthodoxy occurred at a
different time in each case. The Suevi embraced the Catholic
faith in 550; the Visigoths, through their Catholic king
Reccared, were brought within the church at the third council
of Toledo (589). Further north the Burgundians embraced
Catholicism through their king Sigismond in 517, and, finally,
the Lombards, the last of the Arians, accepted Orthodoxy in
the beginning of the seventh century. The Vandals, another
Arian German nation of this period, figured in Africa in the
fourth century.
They were destroyed, however, by the arms of Belisarius in
534, and their early disappearance renders unnecessary their
representation on the present map.
Franks.
Christianity introduced in 496.
This is the date of the historic conversion of Clovis and his
warriors on the battlefield of Tolbiac. The Franks were the
first of the Germanic peoples to pass, as a nation, to
orthodoxy direct from paganism, and their conversion, as we
have seen, was soon followed by the progress from Arianism to
Orthodoxy of the other Germanic nations within the borders of
the Empire.
{xvi}
Ireland.
Christianity introduced by Patrick, 440-493.
St. Patrick entered upon his missionary work in Ireland in
440; he died on the scene of his labors in 493. This period
witnessed the conversion of the bulk of the Irish nation.
Picts.
Christianity introduced from Ireland by Columba, 563-597.
These dates cover the period of St. Columba's ministry. The
work of St. Ninian, the "apostle of the Lowlands" in the
previous century, left very few enduring results. The period
from 563, the date of the founding of the famous Celtic
monastery of Iona, to the death of Columba in 597, witnessed,
however, the conversion of the great mass of the Pictish
nation.
Strathclyde.
Christianity introduced by Kentigern, 550-603.
These dates, like the two preceding, cover the period of the
ministry of a single man, Kentigern, the "apostle of
Strathclyde." The date marking the commencement of Kentigern's
labors is approximate. He died in 603.
England.
The Celtic church had been uprooted in England by the
Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. While
its missionary efforts were now being expended on Scotland,
Strathclyde, and Cornwall, its pristine seat had thus fallen
away to complete paganism. The Christianization of England was
the work of the seventh century, and in this work the Celtic
church, though expending great effort, was anticipated and
ultimately outstripped by the church of Rome.
Kent.
Christianity introduced by Augustine, 597-604.
These dates cover the ministry of St. Augustine, the apostle
of Kent. This was the first foothold gained by the Roman
church on the soil of Britain.
Northumbria.--627-651.
Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria, received baptism from
the Kentish missionary Paulinus on Easter Eve, 627.
The process of conversion was continued by the Celtic
missionary, Aidin, who died in 651. The Christianity of
Northumbria had begun before the latter date, however, to
influence the surrounding states.
East Anglia.--630-647.
East Anglia had one Christian king prior to this period; but
it was only with the accession of Sigebert (630) that great
progress was made in the conversion of the people. The reign
of king Anna witnesses the practical completion of this work.
In 647 the efforts of this sovereign led to the baptism of
Cenwalch, king of the West Saxons.
Wessex.--634-648.
The conversion of the West Saxons was begun by the missionary
Birinus in 634. The year 648 witnessed the restoration of the
Christian king Cenwalch.
Mercia.--654-670.
Mercia was one of the last of the great English kingdoms to
accept the faith. Their king, Penda, was indeed the most
formidable foe the church encountered in the British Isles.
The conversion of Penda's son Peada admitted the gospel to the
Middle Angles, who accepted Christianity in 653. The East
Saxons embraced the faith at about the same time. Finally in
654 the defeat and death of Penda at the hand of Oswy, the
Christian king of Northumbria, opened the doors of Mercia as
well. The conversion of the realm was practically accomplished
during the next few years.
Sussex.--681.
The leaders of the South Saxons received baptism at the hands
of the apostle Wilfred in 681. Sussex was the last retreat of
paganism on the English mainland, and five years later the
conversion of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight completed
the spread of Christianity over every portion of the British
Isles.
Frisians.
Christianity introduced by Willibrord, 690-739.
The work of St. Willibrord among the Frisians was one of many
manifestations of the missionary activity of the Celtic
church. Willibrord introduced Christianity among these people
during the years of his ministry, but to judge by the
subsequent martyrdom of Boniface in Friesland (755) the work
of conversion was not fully completed in all quarters until a
later time.
Mission Field of Boniface.--722-755.
The object of the map is not merely to locate the mission
field of the great "apostle of Germany," but also to give the
location and date of the various bishoprics which owed their
foundation to his missionary efforts.
Saxons.--787-805.
Of all the nations converted to Christianity up to this time
the Saxons were the first conquest of the sword. The two most
powerful Saxon chiefs were baptized in 787; but it was not
until their complete defeat and subjugation by Charlemagne in
805 that the work of conversion showed a degree of
completeness. With the Christianization of the Saxons the
cordon of the church was completed around the Germanic
nations.
Moravia.
Christianity introduced by Cyrillus and Methodius, 863-900.
St. Cyrillus, the "apostle of the Slavs," entered upon his
mission in Moravia in 863. The political Moravia of the ninth
century, under Rastislav and Sviatopluk, exceeded greatly the
limits of the modern province; but the missionary labor of the
brothers Cyrillus and Methodius seems to have produced its
principal results in the modern Moravian territory, as
indicated on the map. Methodius, the survivor of the brothers,
died about 900. In the tenth century Moravia figures as
Christian.
Czechs.--880-1039.
The door to Bohemia was first opened from Moravia in the time
of Sviatopluk. The reactions in favor of paganism were,
however, unusually prolonged and violent. Severus, Archbishop
of Prague, finally succeeded in enforcing the various rules of
the Christian cultus (1039).
Poles.--966-1034.
The Polish duke Mieczyslav was baptized in 966. Mieczyslav II.
died in 1034. These dates cover the active missionary time
when, indeed, the efforts of the clergy were backed by the
strong arm of the sovereign. Poland did not, however, become
completely Christian until a somewhat later period.
Bulgarians.--863-900.
The Bulgarian prince Bogoris was baptized in 863. Again, as in
so many other cases, the faith was compelled to pass to the
people through the medium of the sovereign. The second date is
arbitrary, although Bulgaria appears definitely as a Christian
country at the commencement of the tenth century.
Magyars.--950-1050.
Missionaries were admitted into the territory of the Magyars
in 950.
{xvii}
The coronation of St. Stephen, the "apostolic king," (1000)
marked the real triumph of Christianity in Hungary. A number of
pagan reactions occurred, however, in the eleventh century, so
that it is impossible to place the conversion of the Magyars at
an earlier date than the last one assigned.
Russians.--988-1015.
The Russian grand-duke Vladimir was baptized on the occasion
of his marriage to the princess Anne, sister of the Byzantine
Emperor, in 988. Before his death in 1015 Christianity had
through his efforts become the accepted religion of his
people.
Danes.--Converted by Ansgar and his successors, 827-1035.
The Danes had been visited by missionaries prior to the ninth
century, but their work had left no permanent result. The
arrival of Ansgar, the "apostle of the North" (827), marks the
real beginning of the period of conversion. This period in
Denmark was an unusually long one. It was not fully complete
until the reign of Canute the Great (1019-1035).
Swedes (Gothia).
Christianity introduced by Ansgar and his successors, 829-1000.
Ansgar made his first visit to Sweden in 829, two years after
his arrival in Denmark. The period of conversion, as in
Denmark, was a long one; but by the year 1000 the southern
section, Gothia or Gothland, had become Christian. The
conversion of the northern Swedes was not completed for
another century.
Norwegians.--935-1030.
The period of conversion in Norway began with the reign of the
Christian king Hakon the Good. The faith made slow progress,
however, until the reign of Olaf Trygveson, who ascended the
throne near the end of the tenth century. The work of
conversion was completed in the reign of Olaf the Saint
(1014-1030).
Pomeranians.
Christianity introduced by Otho of Bamberg, 1124-1128.
The attempt of the Poles to convert the Pomeranians by the
sword prior to these dates had proven unavailing, and
missionaries had been driven from the country. Within the
short space of four years, however, Otho of Bamberg succeeded
in bringing the great mass of the people within the pale of
the church.
Abotrites.--1125-1162.
The conversion of these people was clearly the work of the
sword. It was accomplished within the time specified by Albert
the Bear, first margrave of Brandenburg, and Henry the Lion,
duke of Saxony. The last heathen king became the first
Christian duke of Mecklenburg in 1162. Further south the
kindred Wend nations between the Elbe and the Oder had been
the object of German effort, both missionary and military, for
over two centuries, but had generally come within the church
before this time.
Lives and Prussians.
Christianity introduced by the Sword Brothers, 1202-1236,
and by the Teutonic Knights, 1230-1289.
These conversions, the work of the transplanted military
orders of Palestine, were direct conquests of the sword, and
as such possess a definiteness which is so unfortunately
lacking in so many other cases.
So much for the character and the purpose of the dates which
appear on this map. In the employment of the colors, the periods
covered are longer, and as a consequence the general results are
somewhat more definite. The use of a color system directly over a
date system is intended to afford an immediate though general
view, From this to the special aspects presented by the date
features is a simple step in the development of the subject.
Another feature of the map which may not escape notice is the
different systems used, respectively, in the Roman and Mediæval
period for the spelling of urban names. A development map
covering a long period of history cannot be entirely free from
anachronisms of this nature; but a method has nevertheless been
followed in the spelling of these place names:--to give in each
case the spelling current at the period of conversion. The fact
that the labors of the Christian missionaries were confined
mostly to the Roman world in the Roman period, and did not extend
to non-Roman lands until the Middle Ages, enables us to limit our
spelling of civic names to a double system. The cities of the
Roman and of the Mediæval period are shown on the map and in the
key in two different styles of type. Only in the cases of cities
like Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, where the current form has
the absolute sanction of usage even for classic times, has there
been any deviation from the strict line of this method.
In conclusion, the general features of the subject present
themselves as follows: Had the advance of Christianity, like
Mohammedanism, been by conquest, had the bounds of the Christian
faith been thus rendered ever conterminous with the limits of a
people or an empire, then, indeed, the subject of church
expansion would possess a tangibility and coherency concerning
which exact statement would be possible. The historical geography
of the Christian church would then partake of some of the
precision of political division. But the non-political element in
the Christian cultus deprives us, in the study of the subject, of
this invaluable aid. At a later time, when the conquests of the
soul were backed by the strong arm of power, and when the new
faith, as often happened, passed to the people from the
sovereign, a measure of this exactness is perhaps possible.
We have witnessed an indication of these tendencies in many
cases, as we approached the termination of the period covered by
this map. But the fact remains that the fundamental character of
the Christian faith precludes, in the main, the possibility of
its growth being measured by the rules which govern ordinary
political expansion.
This being then a subject on which definiteness is well nigh
impossible, it has been treated by a method correspondingly
elastic. A working basis for the study of the subject is,
however, afforded by this system. This basis secured, the student
may then systematically pursue his theme.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The historical geography of the Christian church, if studied only
within narrow limits, can be culled from the pages of general
church history. All of these accounts, however, are brief--those
in the smaller histories extremely so. If studied thus, the
reader will derive the most help from:
Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church,"
volume I, pages 68-86.
volume II, pages 1-84, 93-129;
Schaff's "History of the Christian Church,"
volume I, pages 224-406,
volume II, pages 13-84,
volume III, pages 10-71,
volume IV, pages 17-142,
Moeller's "History of the Christian Church."
{xviii}
These works may be supplemented by a vast number of books
treating of special phases of church history, though the number
in English dealing specifically with geographical expansion is
very small.
The most recent, dealing with the ante-Nicene period, is Ramsey's
"Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170," to which the same
author's "Historical Geography of Asia Minor" forms a most
indispensible prelude.
Entering the mediæval period, the best general guides are the
little books of G. F. Maclear, entitled respectively the
conversion of the Celts, English, Continental Teutons, Northmen
and Slavs. These works may be supplemented by Thomas Smith's
"Mediæval Missions," and for special subjects by G. T. Stokes'
"Ireland and the Celtic Church," W. F. Skene's "Celtic Scotland"
(volume II), and S. Baring Gould's "The Church in Germany."
The texts of the Councils as contained in Harduin, Labbe, and
Mansi are indispensible original aids in the study of church
geography.
Of German Works, J. E. T. Wiltsch's "Atlas Sacer," and the same
author's "Church Geography and Statistics," translated by John
Leitch, have long remained the standard guides for a study of the
historical geography of the church. The Atlas Sacer, containing
five large plates, is the only pure atlas guide to the subject.
The "Church Geography and Statistics," being an ecclesiastical
work, dwells with great fulness on the internal facts of church
geography, but the outward expansion, barring the early growth of
the church, is not so concisely treated. For the history of
mediæval missions the reader will be better served elsewhere. To
the reader using German, C. G. Blumhardt's "Die
Missionsgeschichte der Kirche Christi" (3 volumes, 1828-1837), and
a later work, "Handbuch der Missionsgeschichte und
Missionsgeographie" (2 volumes, 1863), may be noted.
For modern missions there is a very full literature.
Comprehensive works on this subject are Grundemann's "Allgemeine
Missions Atlas," Burkhardt and Grundemann's "Les Missions
Evangéliques" (4 vols.), and in English the "Encyclopædia of
Missions." Several articles in the "Encyclopædia of Missions"
should not escape notice. Among them are "Mediæval Missions," and
the "Historical Geography of Missions," the latter by Dr. Henry
W. Hulbert. The writer is glad at this point to return his thanks
to Dr. Hulbert for the valued aid extended in the location of the
Church of the ante-Nicene period.
A. C. Reiley
{xix}
APPENDIX E.
THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND CORRECTIONS TO MATTER
RELATING TO AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
(PP. 76-108) HAVE BEEN KINDLY MADE BY MAJOR J. W. POWELL
AND MR. J. OWEN DORSEY, OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.
Adai.
This tribe, formerly classed as a distinct family--the
Adaizan--is now regarded by the Bureau of Ethnology as but a
part of the Caddoan or Pawnee.
Apache Group.
Indians of different families are here mentioned together:
(A) the Comanches, etc., of the Shoshonean Family;
(B) the Apaches (including the Chiricaguis, or Chiri cahua,
Coyoteros, etc., but excluding the Tejuas who are Tañoan) of
the Athapascan Family, the Navajos of the same family; and
(C) the Yuman Family, including the Cosninos, who are not
Apache (Athapascan stock).
Athapascan Family.
Not an exact synonym of "Chippewyans, Tinneh and Sarcees." The
whole family is sometimes known as Tinneh, though that
appellation is more frequently limited to part of the Northern
group, the Chippewyans. The Surcees are an offshoot of the
Beaver tribe, which latter form part of one of the
subdivisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.
The Sarcees are now with the Blackfeet.
Atsinas (Caddoes).
The Atsinas are not a Caddoan people, but they are Algonquian,
as are the Blackfeet (Sik-sik-a). The Atsinas are the "Fall
Indians," "Minnetarees of the Plains," or "Gros Ventres of the
Plains," as distinguished from the Hidatsa, who are sometimes
called the "Minnetarees of the Missouri," "Gros Ventres of the
Missouri."
Blackfeet or Siksikas.
The Sarcee are a Tinneh or Athapascan tribe, but they are not
the Tinneh (see above). The "Atsina" are not a Caddo tribe
(see above).
Cherokees.
These people are now included in the Iroquoian Family. See
Powell, in Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 79.
Flatheads (Salishan Family).
The "Cherakis," though included among the Flatheads by Force,
are of the Iroquoian Family. The "Chicachas" or Chickasaws,
are not Salishan, but Muskhogean. See Powell, Seventh Annual
Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 95. The Totiris of Force, are
the Tutelos, a tribe of the Siouan Family. See Powell,
Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 116. The
Cathlamahs, Killmucks (i. e., Tillamooks), Clatsops, Chinooks
and Chilts are of the Chinookan Family. See Powell, Seventh
Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 65, 66.
Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).
There are two distinct tribes which are often confounded, both
being known as the Gros Ventres or Minnetarees. 1. The Atsina
or Fall Indians, an Algonquian tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the
Plains," or the "Minnetarees of the Plains." 2. The Hidatsa, a
Siouan tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Missouri," or the
"Minnetarees of the Missouri." The former, the Atsina, have
been wrongly styled "Caddoes" on page 81.
Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Gros Ventres.
Often confounded with the Atsina, who belong to the Algonquian
Family, the Hidatsa being a tribe of the Siouan Family. The
Hidatsa have been called Gros Ventres, "Big Paunches," but
this nickname could have no reference to any personal
peculiarities of the Hidatsa. It seems to have originated in a
quarrel between some Indians over the big paunch of a buffalo,
resulting in the separation of the people into the present
tribes of Hidatsas and Absarokas or Crows, the latter of whom
now call the Hidatsa, "Ki-kha-tsa," from ki-kha, a paunch.
Hupas.
They belong to the Athapascan Family: the reference to the
Modocs is misleading.
Iroquois Tribes of the South.
"The Meherrins or Tuteloes."
These were not identical, the Tutelos being a Siouan tribe,
the Meherrins being now identified with the Susquehannocks.
Kenai or Blood Indians.
The Kenai are an Athapascan people inhabiting the shores of
Cook's Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, Southern Alaska; while
the Blood Indians are a division of the Blackfeet (Siksika),
an Algonquian tribe, in Montana.
Kusan Family.
The villages of this family were on Coos River and Bay, and on
both sides of Coquille River, near the mouth. See Powell,
Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 80.
ALSO IN:
J. Owen Dorsey, The Gentile System of the
Siletz Tribes, in Journal American Folk-Lore,
July-Sept., 1890, page 231.
Minnetarees.
See above, ATSINA and HIDATSA.
Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.
The Klamaths and Modocs are of the Lutuamian Family; the
Shastas of the Sastean; the Pit River Indians of the
Palaihnihan; the Eurocs of the Weitspekan; the Cahrocs of the
Quoratean; the Hoopahs, Tolewas, and the lower Rogue River
Indians of the Athapascan; the upper Rogue River Indians of
the Takilman.
Muskhogean Family.
The Biloxi tribe is not Muskhogean but Siouan. See Dorsey
(James Owen), "The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana," reprinted
from volume 42, Proc. American Association Advancement
of Science., Madison meeting, 1893.
Natchitoches.
A tribe of the Caddoan Family.
Dorsey (J. Owen), MS. in the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882.
ALSO IN:
Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 61.
Pueblos.
"That Zuni was Cibola it is needless to attempt to prove any
further."
A. F. Bandelier, Journal of American Eth. and Arch., volume 3,
page 19, 1892.
{xx}
Rogue River Indians.
This includes tribes of various families: the upper Rogue
River Indians being the Takelma, who are assigned to a special
family, the Takilman; and the lower Rogue River Indians, who
are Athapascan tribes.
See Dorsey (J. Owen), "The Gentile System of the Siletz
Tribes," in Journal of American Folk-Lore,
July-September., 1890, pages 228, 232-236.
Santees.
Two divisions of the Siouan Family are known by this name: 1.
The I san-ya-ti or Dwellers on Knife Lake, Minnesota,
identical with the Mdewakantonwan Dakota. These figured in the
Minnesota outbreak of 1862. The survivors are in Knox County,
Nebraska, on what was once the Santee reservation, and near
Flandreau, South Dakota. 2. The Santees of South Carolina were
part of the Catawba confederacy. The Santee river is named
after them.
Sarcee.
These are not all of the Tinneh, nor are they really
Blackfeet, though living with them. The Sarcees are an
offshoot of the Beaver Indians, a tribe of one of the
divisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.
Siouan Family.
All the tribes of this family do not speak the Sioux language,
as is wrongly stated on page 103. Those who speak the "Sioux"
language are the Dakota proper, nicknamed Sioux, and the
Assiniboin. There are, or have been, nine other groups of
Indians in this family: to the Cegiha or Dhegiha group belong
the Omahas, Ponkas, Osages, Kansas or Kaws, and Kwapas or
Quapaws; to the Tchiwere group belong the Iowas, Otos, and
Missouris; the Winnebago or Hochangara constitute another
group; the fifth group consists of the survivors of the Mandan
nation; to the sixth group belong the Hidatsa and the
Absarokas or Crows; the Tutelos, Keyauwees, Aconeechis, etc.,
constituted the seventh group; the tribes of the Catawba
confederacy, the eighth; the Biloxis, the ninth; and certain
Virginia tribes the tenth group. The Winnebagos call
themselves Hochangara, or First Speech (not "Trout Nation"),
they are not called Horoje ("fish-eaters") by the Omahas, but
Hu-tan-ga, Big Voices, a mistranslation of Hochangara. The
Dakotas proper sometimes speak of themselves as the "O-che-ti
sha-ko-win," or the Seven Council-fires. Their Algonquian foes
called them Nadowe-ssi-wak, the Snake-like ones, from nadowe,
a snake; this was corrupted by the Canadian French to
Nadouessioux, of which the last syllable is Sioux. The seven
primary divisions of the Dakota are as follow: Mdewakantonwan,
Wakhpekute, Sisitonwan or Sisseton, Wakhpetonwan or Warpeton,
Ihanktonwan or Yankton, Ihanktonwanna or Yanktonnai, and
Titonwan or Teton.
The Sheyennes or Cheyennes, mentioned in connection with the
Sioux by Gallatin and Carver, are an Algonquian people. Gallatin
styles the "Mandanes" a Minnetaree tribe; but as has just been
stated, the survivors of the Mandan nation, a people that
formerly inhabited many villages (according to Dr. Washington
Matthews and others) belong to a distinct group of the Siouan
Family, and the Hidatsa (including the Amakhami or "Annahawas" of
Gallatin) and the Absaroka, Upsaroka or Crows constitute the
sixth group of that family. The "Quappas or Arkansas" of Gallatin
are the Kwapas or Quapaws of recent times. The Osages call
themselves, not "Wausashe," but Wa-sha-she.
Takilman Family.
"The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue
River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on
the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep
Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now
included among the 'Rogue River Indians,' and they reside on
the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey
found them in 1884."
Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
page 121.
They call themselves, Ta-kel-ma
Dorsey.
Dorsey had their chief make a map showing the locations of all
their villages.
{xxi}
[Transcriber's note:
The internet links listed were active at the time of this
production in 2021. The link may be to a different edition than
listed. Most are to archive.org or gutenberg.org,
both excellent repositories of free books.
An internet search (duckduckgo, google, bing, ...) will provide
links to many other sources. These were produced by entering the
author and title, as shown in the list, eg.,
BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States of America, site:archive.org
Without the site restriction (site:archive.org) the search
results are flooded with links to commercial sites, hiding the
actual targets.
Results can be extended by noting the sequence number in a link such as:
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
Try modifying the number for adjacent volumes of the same title.]
APPENDIX F.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
THE BETTER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ON SUBJECTS NAMED BELOW.
In the following Classified List, the date of the first
appearance of each one among the older works is given in
parentheses, if ascertained. The period covered by the several
memoirs, and other works limited in time, is stated in
brackets.
AMERICA.
DISCOVERY.
EXPLORATION.
SETTLEMENT.
ARCHÆOLOGY.
ETHNOLOGY.
GENERAL.
BANCROFT, GEORGE.
History of the United States of America, part 1.
(Author's last revision.)
New York: D. Appleton & Company 1883-5. 6 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa01bancrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds06banciala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037606mbp
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up
BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
History of the Pacific States of North America:
Central America, volumes 1-2;
Mexico, volumes 1-2.
San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company 1882-3.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics11bategoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics16bategoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics24bategoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics13bategoog
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics30bategoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics02bategoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics23bategoog
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics04bategoog
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics29bategoog
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics03bategoog
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics06bategoog
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics07bategoog
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics05bategoog
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific13bancrich
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific14bancrich
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics09bategoog
(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics01bategoog
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics10bategoog
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific17bancrich
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics22bategoog
(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics08bategoog
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics20bategoog
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics27bategoog
(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics31bategoog
(Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics17bategoog
(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics18bategoog
(Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics28bategoog
(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics19bategoog
(Volume 25) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog
(Volume 26) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics12bategoog
(Volume 27) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics21bategoog
(Volume 31) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics25bategoog
(Volume 32) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog
(Volume 33) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics14bategoog
BANVARD, REVEREND JOSEPH.
Novelties of the new world.
Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/noveltiesofnew00banv
BELKNAP, JEREMY.
American biography, volume 1. (1794-8.)
New York: Harper & Brothers. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanbiograph185101belk
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48978
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37965
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
Notes of Americana.
(Bulletins, volume 3. pages 205-209.)
BROWNELL, HENRY.
North and South America Illustrated, from its first discovery.
Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Company 1800. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/northsouthameric11brow
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northsouthamill01browrich
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northandsoutham00browgoog
BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SIDNEY H. GAY.
Popular history of the United States, volume 1.
New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1870-81. 4 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/3704730.1-4
BUMP, C. W.
Bibliographies of America. Baltimore. 1892.
(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical
and political science. 10th series, nos. 10-11. appendix)
CARVER, ELVIRA, and MARA L. PRATT.
Our fatherland. [Juvenile.]
Boston: Educational Publication Company. 1890. volume 1-.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherland00carv
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherlandvol01carvuoft
FISKE, JOHN.
The discovery of America: with some account of
ancient America and the Spanish conquest.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk
GORDON, THOMAS F.
History of America, volumes. 1-2;
containing the history of the Spanish discoveries
prior to 1520. Philadelphia. 1832. 2 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00gordgoog
HAKLUYT, RICHARD. collection
Divers voyages touching the discovery of America and
the Islands adjacent (1582); with notes by John W. Jones.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1850.
https://archive.org/details/diversvoyagesto00thorgoog
HARRISSE, HENRY.
The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary,
and historic investigation.
London: H. Stevens & Son. 1892.
HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
A book of American explorers.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1877.
Larger history of the United States of America, chapters 1-5.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.
HOLMES, ABIEL.
The annals of America, 1492-1826 (1805); 2d edition.
Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsamerica02holmgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americanannals00unkngoog
HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON.
Cosmos (1845-58), translated by E. C. Otté,
part 2, section 6 (volume 2).
London: H. Bohn. 1847-58. 5 volumes
(Audio) https://archive.org/details/cosmos_1603_librivox
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cosmosasketchap00dallgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cosmossketchofph0002humb/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cosmosofph03humbrich
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/sketchofphcosmos04humbrich
New York: Harper & Brothers 1850-. 5 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/cosmos01humbgoog
KERR, ROBERT, ed.
General history and collection of voyages and travels (1811-1824).
volumes 1-6.
Edinburgh: W. Blackwood. 18 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory06kerrgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco02kerrrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory02kerrgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zb46AAAAIAAJ
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory07kerrgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory08kerrgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco05kerrrich
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory15kerrgoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10kerrgoog
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory12kerrgoog
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory09kerrgoog
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory11kerrgoog
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory04kerrgoog
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.18187
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory14kerrgoog
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory05kerrgoog
(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory13kerrgoog
(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory03kerrgoog
KINGSLEY, CHARLES.
The first discovery of America.
(Lectures delivered in America in 1874.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1875.
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875.)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1360
https://archive.org/details/lecturesdelivere00king
LODGE, H. C.
Gravier's Découverte de l'Amérique.
(North American Review 119: 166. 1874.)
MACGREGOR, JOHN.
Progress in America.
London: Whittaker & Company. 1847. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/progressofameric01macguoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/progressamerica02macggoog
MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
America; a history.
London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.87679
MAVOR, WILLIAM.
Historical account of the most celebrated voyages.
volumes 1 and 17.
London: 1790-7. 20 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou01conggoog/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou02conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou13conggoog
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37601
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37604
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc03mavogoog
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou11conggoog
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09conggoog
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou17mavogoog
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09mavogoog
(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37614
(Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37615
(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc10mavogoog
(Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37617
(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou08mavogoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37618
PALFREY, JOHN G.
History of New England, volume 1, chapter 2.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-90.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl02palf
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl0002palf/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl00palf
PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.
History of the new world called America.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892-. volume 1-.
New York: Macmillan & Company. 1892-. volume 1-.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld01paynrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld02paynrich
PINKERTON, JOHN, ed.
General collection of the best and most interesting
voyages and travels, volume 14.
London: Longman. 1808-14. 17 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18698
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio01pink
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio02pink
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pink
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pinkuoft
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect05pinkgoog/page/n15/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18703
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio07pink
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect03unkngoog/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio09pink
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio10pink
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio11pink
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio12pink
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio14pink
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.5489
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1668
ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
History of America (1777-96).
(Works, volumes 6-8.
Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler. 1825.)
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica12robegoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americarobertson00willrich/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00robegoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03robe
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica01unkngoog
SCAIFE, WALTER B.
America, its geographical history, 1492-1892.
(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and
political science, extra volume 13.) Baltimore. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/americaitsgeogra00scairich
SNOWDEN, RICHARD.
History of North and South America, from its discovery
to the death of General Washington. (1806.)
Philadelphia: B. Warner. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 2) /phttps://archive.org/details/historynorthand00snowgoog
STEVENS, HENRY.
Historical and geographical notes on the earliest
discoveries in America, 1453-1530.
London: Henry Stevens. 1869.
New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/historicalandge00stevgoog
WILLSON, MARCIUS.
American history.
New York: Mark H. Newman & Company. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/americanhistory00will
WINSOR, JUSTIN.
Harrisse's Discovery of North America
Nation, 55: 244. 264.
https://archive.org/details/jstor-196715/page/n11/mode/2up
Editor, Narrative and critical history of America
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1886. 8 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 1, 1)https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica51wins
(Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica12wins
(Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica02winsrich
(Volume 2, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica21wins
(Volume 2, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica22wins
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0003wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 3, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica31wins
(Volume 3, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica32wins
(Volume 4 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
(Volume 4, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica41wins
(Volume 4, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica42wins
(Volume 5 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0005wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica52wins
(Volume 6, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica61wins
(Volume 6, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica62wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0007wins/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 7, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica72wins
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0008wins/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 8, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica82wins
YATES, JOHN V. N., and MOULTON, JOS. W.
History of the state of New York, volume 1, part 1.
New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1924-6. 2 volumes.
(Volume1, 1)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof12moul_0
(Part 2)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof02moul/page/n3/mode/2up
PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.
ANDERSON, RASMUS B.
America not discovered by Columbus.
Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/americanotdiscov00andeiala
BEAMISH, NORTH LUDLOW.
The discovery of America by the Northmen in the 10th century.
London: T. & W. Boone 1841.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00beamgoog
BOWEN, Reverend BENJ. F.
America discovered by the Welsh in 1170. A. D.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1876.
https://archive.org/details/americadiscovere00boweuoft
DALL, W. H.
Alleged early Chinese voyages to America.
(Science, 8: 402. 1886.)
DAVIS, ASAHEL.
Discovery of America by the Northmen.
Rochester: D. Hoyt. 1839.
https://archive.org/details/lectureondiscove00davi
DE COSTA, Reverend BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, editor.
The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen,
illustrated by translations from the Icelandic sagas.
Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandisc00deco
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221
{xxii}
DIMAN, J. L.
De Costa's Pre-Columbian discovery of America,
(North American Review, 109: 205. 1869.)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221
DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY THE NORTHMEN.
(Atlantic Monthly, 54: 282. 1884.)
DU BOIS, B. H.
Did the Norse discover America?
(Magazines of American History, 27: 369. 1892.)
ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.
The New England history, chapter 1.
New York: Charles Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/newenglandhisto04elligoog
EVERETT, EDWARD.
Discovery of America by the Northmen.
(North American Review, 46: 161. 1838.)
FISKE, JOHN.
How America came to be discovered.
(Harper's Magazine, 64: 111. 1881.)
HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The visit of the Vikings,
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 515. 1882.)
HORSFORD, EBEN NORTON.
The problem of the Northmen.
Cambridge: J. Wilson & Son. 1889.
https://archive.org/details/problemofnorthme00hors
LEGENDS OF OLD America.
(Cornhill Magazine 26: 452. 1872.)
LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY.
The ante-Norse discoverers of America
(Continental Monthly, 1: 389,530. 1862)
Fusang: or the discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist
priests in the 5th century.
London: Trübner. 1875.
New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875.
http://link.archive.org/portal/Fusang-or-The-discovery-of-America-by-Chinese/ZD2URRe5Nbs/
MacLEAN, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America
(American Antiquarian, 14, 1892)
MAJOR, RICHARD HENRY.
The life of prince Henry of Portugal,
surnamed the navigator, and its results.
London: A. Asher & Company, 1868.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincehenr00majo
On the voyages of the Venetian brothers Zeno.
(Massachusetts History Society Proceedings, 1873-75.)
Translator and editor.
Voyages of the Venetian brothers, Nicolò and Antonio Zeno,
to the northern seas, in the 14th century.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/voyagesofvenetia00zenorich
ONDERDONK, J. L.
Pre-Columbian discoveries of America,
(National Quarterly Review, 33: 1. 1876.)
https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandis00ondegoog/page/n4/mode/2up
PILON, M. R.
Visits of Europeans to America
in the 10th and 11th centuries.
(Potter's American Monthly, 5: 903. 1875.)
RANKING, JOHN,
Historical researches on the conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc.,
in the 13th century, by the Mongols.
London: Longman. 1827.
https://archive.org/details/historicalresear00rank
REEVES, ARTHUR MIDDLETON.
The finding of Wineland the good.
London: Henry Frowde. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich
ROPES, A. R.
Early explorations of America, real and imaginary.
(English Historical Review, 2: 78. 1887.)
SHORT, JOHN T.
Claims to the discovery of America
(Galaxy, 20: 509. 1875.)
SLAFTER, Rev. EDMUND F.
The discovery of America by the Northmen 985-1015:
a discourse delivered before the New Hampshire
Historical Society, April 24, 1888.
https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich
Editor.
Voyages of the Northmen to America; including extracts from
the Icelandic sagas in an English translation by N. L. Beamish,
opinion of Professor Rafn, etc.
Boston: Prince Society. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/voyagesofnorthme00slafiala
SMITH, JOSHUA TOULMIN.
The discovery of America by the Northmen In the 10th century;
comprising translations of all the most important original
narratives (1839). 2d edition.
London: William S. Orr & Company 1842.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri00smit
SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
Madoc (1805).
London: Longmans.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/madoc03soutgoog/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/madoc00soutgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
STEPHENS, THOMAS.
Madoc; an essay on the discovery of America by
Madoc ap Owen Gwynedd in the 12th century.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/madocessayondisc00stepuoft
STORM, GUSTAV.
Studies on the Vineland voyages.
Copenhagen: Thiele. 1889.
VINING, EDWARD P.
An inglorious Columbus; or, evidence that Hwui Shán
and a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered
America in the 5th century.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/ingloriouscolumb00vini
VOYAGES TO VINLAND, THE; from the saga of Eric the red.
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No.31.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_07112/page/n5/mode/2up
WATSON, PAUL B.
Bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America.
(Library Journal, 6: 227. 1881.)
WINSOR, JUSTIN.
America prefigured: an address at Harvard, October 21, 1892.
Cambridge. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/prefiguredamerica00winsrich/page/4/mode/2up
COLUMBUS
ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL.
Christopher Columbus, his life and work.
("Makers of America.")
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1892.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54929
https://archive.org/details/christophercolum00adamrich
Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus.
(Magazine of American History, 27: 161, 1892.)
ADAMS, HERBERT B., and HENRY WOOD.
Columbus and his discovery of America.
(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political
science, 10th series, Numbers 10-11,)
Baltimore, October-November, 1892.
https://archive.org/details/columbusandhisd00woodgoog
BLIND, K.
The forerunners of Columbus.
(New Review, 7: 346, Living Age, 195: 387. 1892.)
CASTELAR, EMILIO.
Christopher Columbus.
(Century, 22: 123-921. 1892.)
https://archive.org/details/centuryillustrat44newyuoft
COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER.
Journal, 1492-3; and documents relating to the voyages of John
[and Sebastian] Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real; translated by
C. R. Markham.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_05312
The letter on the discovery of America; a facsimile
of the pictorial edition, with a new and literal translation.
Printed by the Lenox Library. New York. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/letterofcolumbus00colum
Letter to Gabriel Sanchez, 1493.
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 33.)
https://archive.org/details/spanishletterco00kerngoog
Select letters, with other original documents; translated
and edited by R. H. Major.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1847.
Writings descriptive of the discovery and occupation
of the new world; edited by Paul Leicester Ford.
New York: C. L. Webster & Company. 1892.
COLUMBUS, FERDINAND.
The discovery of America; from the life of Columbus.
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 29.)
ELTON, CHARLES.
The career of Columbus.
New York: Cassell Publishing Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/careercolumbus00eltogoog
GOODRICH, AARON.
History of the character and achievements of the
so-called Christopher Columbus.
New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874.
https://archive.org/details/historyofcharact00good
HELPS, Sir ARTHUR, and H. P. Thomas.
Life of Columbus.
London: Bell & Daldy. 1869.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15336
IRVING, WASHINGTON.
Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828);
to which are added those of his companions (1831).
New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8519
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand01irviiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand02irviiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand03irviiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyagesc05irvigoog
LORGUES, ROSELLY DE.
Life of Christopher Columbus, from Spanish and Italian
documents; comp. from the French by J. J. Barry.
Boston: P. Donahoe. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofchristophe00rose
MACKIE, CHARLES PAUL.
The last voyages of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea,
as related by himself and his companions.
Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/lastvoyagesadmi00paulgoog
MACKINTOSH, J.
The discovery of America by Columbus and the
origin of the North American Indians.
Toronto. 1836.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00mcingoog
MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
Life of Christopher Columbus.
London: George Philip & Son. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924020393413
MAURY, M.
An examination of the claims of Columbus.
(Harper's Magazines, 42: 425, 527. 1871.)
OBER, FREDERICK A.
In the wake of Columbus; adventures of the special
commissioner sent by the World's Columbian Exposition
to the West Indies.
Boston: D. Lothrop Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/inwakecolumbusa00obergoog
SEELYE, ELIZABETH EGGLESTON.
The story of Columbus; with introduction by Edward Eggleston.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/storyofcolumbus00seel
SPALDING, J. L.,
Columbus, (Catholic World, 56: 1. 1892.)
TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
The life of Christopher Columbus;
translated from the Italian by H. F. Brownson.
Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1890. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifechriscolum01tardrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifechristopher00browgoog
WINSOR, JUSTIN.
Christopher Columbus, and how he received and imparted
the spirit of discovery.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.158654
Columbiana. (Nation, 52: 297. 1891.)
POST-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.
ARBER, EDWARD. editor.
The first three English books on America (?1511)-1555 A. D.;
being chiefly translations, compilations, &c., by
Richard Eden, from the writings of Pietro Martire,
Sebastian Münster, Sebastian Cabot.
Birmingham. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/firstthreeenglis00arberich
ASHER, G. M., editor
Henry Hudson the navigator: original documents in which
his career is recorded.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/henryhudsonnavig27ashe
BIDDLE, RICHARD.
Memoir of Sebastian Cabot.
Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.
https://archive.org/details/sebastiancabot00biddrich
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
America in the 16th century
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 130-141).
Early English explorations in America
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 241-244).
Early explorations in America
(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 103-100).
{xxiii}
BREVOORT, J. C.
Verrazano the navigator [from report of the American
Geographical Society of New York for 1873].
New York. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/verrazanonavigator00brevrich
CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE.
Voyages (1603-1610): translated Charles P. Otis, [editor]
with memoir by E. F. Slafter.
Boston: Prince Society. 1878-82. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_26911
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00massgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00unkngoog
DE VRIES. D. P.
Extracts from the voyages; translated from a
Dutch ms. in the Philadelphia Library, by Dr. G.
Troost. (Collections of the New York Historical Society.,
2d series, volume 1.
New York. 1841.)
Voyages from Holland to America, 1632-1644;
translated by H. C. Murphy. (Collections of the New
York Historical Society, 2d series, volume 3.
New York. 1857.)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028729402/page/n25/mode/2up
FISKE, JOHN.
The romance of the Spanish and French explorers.
(Harper's Magazines, 64: 438. 1882.)
FORCE, M. F.
Some observations on the letters of Amerigo Vespucci (1879).
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company 1885.
https://archive.org/details/someobservation01forcgoog
HAKLUYT, RICHARD, editor.
The principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and
discoveries of the English nation
(1589); edited by E. Goldsmid. volume 12-15.
Edinburgh: E. & G. Goldsmid. 1889-90.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.178849
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat02hakluoft
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00haklgoog
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga06hakl
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00unkngoog
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33125
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat10hakl
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat11hakl
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat12hakl
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/theprincipalnavi25645gut
(Volume 13) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25645/
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33132
HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The old English seamen.
(Harper's Mag., 66: 217. 1883)
The Spanish discoverers.
(Harper's Magazine. 65: 729. 1882.)
HUDSON, HENRY.
Divers voyages and northern discoveries.
(Purchas his pilgrimes, volume 3.
Collections of the New York Historical Society, volume 1.
New York. 1811.)
JUET, ROBERT.
Extract from the journal of the voyage
of the Half-Moon, Henry Hudson, master, 1609.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 1.
New York. 1841.)
http://halfmoon.mus.ny.us/Juets-journal.pdf
KOHL, J. G.
History of the discovery of Maine; with
an appendix on the voyages of the Cabots.
(Collections of the Maine Historical Society.,
2d series, volume 1.
Portland: 1869.)
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofdiscove00kohl
LESTER, C. EDWARDS, and A. FOSTER.
Life and voyages of Americus Vespucius.
New York: Baker & Scribner. 1846.
https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyages00lestrich/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofame00lestiala
https://archive.org/details/cu31924020421867
NICHOLLS, J. F.
Remarkable life, adventures and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/remarkablelifead00nich
PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
Pioneers of France in the New World.
Boston: Little. Brown & Company. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/pioneers_of_france_in_new_world_0908_librivox1
PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.
Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America;
13 original narratives from the collection of Hakluyt.
London: Thomas de la Rue & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/voyagesofelizabe02hakluoft
READ, JOHN MEREDITH, Jr.
Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/historicalinquir00readuoft
SANTAREM, Viscount. Researches respecting Americus
Vespucius and his voyages (1842); translated by E. V. Childe.
Boston: C. C. Little & Jas. Brown. 1850.
https://archive.org/details/researchesrespe02conggoog
STANLEY OF ALDERLEY. Lord.
The first voyage round the world, by Magellan; translated from
the accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary writers; with
documents, notes, etc.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/firstvoyageround00piga
TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.
John and Sebastian Cabot, biographical notice, with documents;
translated from the Italian by Henry F. Brownson.
Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/johnsebast00tardrich
TOWLE, GEORGE M.
Magellan.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/magellan00towl/page/n5/mode/2up
VERRAZANO, JOHN DE. The relation of.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society., volume 1.
New York. 1811.)
The same: a new translation, by J. G. Cogswell.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 1.
New York. 1841.)
Voyage, 1524.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 17.)
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
VESPUCCI, AMERIGO.
Account of his first voyage; letter to Pier Soderini.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 34.)
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
The first four voyages; reprinted in facsimile and
translated from the rare original edition. (1505-6).
London: Bernard Quaritch. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesp
https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesprich
VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS, THE.
From Hakluyt's "Principal navigations."
Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.
(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 37.)
SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION.
ANDAGOYA, PASCUAL DE.
Narrative of the proceedings of Pedrarias Davila [1514-1541];
translated and edited by C. R. Markham.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofproce00anda
BANDELIER, ADOLF F. A.
Discovery of New Mexico [Cibola] by Fray Marcos of Nizza.
(Magazine of Western History, 4: 659. 1886.)
BENZONI, GIROLAMO.
History of the new world, shewing his travels in America,
1541-1556; translated and edited by W. H. Smyth.
London: Hakluyt Society. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/historynewworld00smytgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
BLACKMAR, FRANK W.
Spanish Institutions of the southwest.
Baltimore. 1801. (Johns Hopkins University studies in
history and political science. Extra volume 10.)
https://archive.org/details/spanishinstituti00blac
CHARLEVOIX, Father F. P. X. DE.
History of Paraguay (1756);
[translated from the French].
London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.
(French) https://archive.org/details/histoireduparag04chargoog
(English) https://books.google.com/books?id=40sIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHEVALIER, MICHEL.
Mexico, ancient and modern; translated by T. Alpass.
London: J. Maxwell & Company. 1864. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_33125000251625/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoancientan01alpagoog
CIEZA DE LEON, PEDRO DE.
Travels, A. D. 1532-50, contained in the first and
second parts of his Chronicle of Peru (1553-):
translated an edited by C. R. Markham.
London: Hakluyt Society 1864-83.
https://archive.org/details/travelsofpedrode33ciez/page/n31/mode/2up
CLAVIGERO, Abbé D. FRANCESCO SAVERIO.
History of Mexico, collected from Spanish and Mexican
historians, from MSS. and ancient paintings of the Indians;
translated from the Italian by Charles Cullen.
Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson. 1804. 3 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmexicoc03clav
CORTEZ, HERNANDO.
Despatches addressed to the emperor Charles V. during
the conquest: translated from the Spanish, with
introduction and notes by George Folsom.
New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.
https://archive.org/details/despatchesofhern0cort
DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.
Memoirs, containing a true and full account of the
discovery and conquest of Mexico and New Spain (1612):
translated from the Spanish by John I. Lockhart.
London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis01dauoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsconquist01lockgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.40349/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis02di
DISCOVERY and conquest of Terra Florida, by Don Fernando de Solo;
written by a gentleman of Elvas (1557), and translated out of
Portuguese by Richard Hakluyt: edited by W. B. Rye.
London: Hakluyt Society 1851.
https://archive.org/details/discoveryandcon00haklgoog
FANCOURT, CHARLES. ST. J.
History of Yucatan.
London: J. Murray. 1854.
https://archive.org/details/historyofyucatan00fanc
HELPS, Sir ARTHUR.
Life of Hernando Cortes.
London: Bell & Son. 1871. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifehernandocor00goog/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85399/page/ii/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco01helpuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco02helpuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86033
Life of Las Casas.
London: Bell & Son. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/lifeoflascasasth00help/page/n7/mode/2up
Life of Pizarro.
London: Bell & Son. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofpizarrowit00help
The Spanish conquest In America.
London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1867. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquesti01helpuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest00conggoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest06oppegoog
(Volume 3) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/agf7071.0003.001
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/spanish_conquest_in_america_vol4/page/n3/mode/2up
IRVING, THEODORE.
History of De Soto's conquest of Florida (1835).
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvirich/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvigoog
MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
History of Peru, chapters 1-4.
Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/ahistoryperu01markgoog
Edited and translated.
Reports on the discovery of Peru.
London: Hakluyt Society 1872.
https://archive.org/details/reportsondiscove04mark
MAYER, BRANTZ.
Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, book. 1.
Hartford: S. Drake & Company. 1851. 2 volumes.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Mexico_Aztec_Spanish_and_republican.html?id=4QNQAQAAIAAJ
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspan01mayegoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspani02maye
RESCOTT, WILLIAM H.
History of the conquest of Mexico (1843);
edited by J. F. Kirk.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestofmexico01presrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestmexico02presuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyconmex03pres
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques04pres
History of the conquest of Peru (1847);
edited by J. F. Kirk.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques01presiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques02presiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques03presiala
RAYNAL, Abbé.
A philosophical and political history of the settlements and
trade of the Europeans in the east and west Indies (1770);
translated from the French by J. O. Justamond.
London. 1788. 8 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol01rayn
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol02rayn
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol03rayn
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol04rayn
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol06rayn
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol05rayn
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol07rayn
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol08rayn/
RIVERO, M. E., and TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.
Peruvian antiquities:
translated from the Spanish by F. L. Hawks.
New York: G. P. Putnam & Company. 1853.
https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
SIMPSON, J. H.
Coronado's march in search of the "Seven cities of Cibola."
Washington. 1871.
https://archive.org/details/coronadosmarchin00simprich/page/n11/mode/2up
SOLIS, Don ANTONIO DE
History of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards (1684);
translated from the Spanish by T. Townsend,
revised and corrected by N. Hook.
London: T. Woodward. 1738. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_the_Conquest_of_Mexico.html?id=ejQVAAAAQAAJ
SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
History of Brazil, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1810-19. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil01sout
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil02sout
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil03sout
SOUTHEY, THOMAS.
Chronological history of the West Indies, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1827. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis01sout
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02sout
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis03sout
TOWLE, GEORGE M.
Pizarro.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/pizarrohisadvent00towlrich/page/n5/mode/2up
TYLOR, EDWARD B.
Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1861.
https://archive.org/details/b24883360
WASHBURN, CHARLES A.
History of Paraguay, chapters 1-4.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1871. 2 volumes.
(volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua01washuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
(volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua02wash
WATSON, ROBERT G.
The Spanish and Portuguese in South America during
the colonial period, volume 1.
London: Trübner & Company. 1884. 2 volumes.
(volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishportugues01watsuoft
(volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50990
(volume 2) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52252
WILSON, ROBERT A.
A new history of the conquest of Mexico, in which
Las Casas' denunciations of the popular historians
of that war are vindicated.
Philadelphia: Jas. Challen & Son. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/anewhistoryconq00goog
{xxiv}
ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONIZATION.
ACRELIUS, ISRAEL.
History of New Sweden. (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania
Historical Society, volume 11.
Philadelphia. 1876.)
https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed11acre
https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed00acre
https://archive.org/details/cihm_12822/page/n5/mode/2up
ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
Three episodes of Massachusetts history.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm01adamuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm02adam
BAYLIES, FRANCIS.
Historical memoir of the colony of New Plymouth (1830).
Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1866. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir11bayl
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir02bayl
BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
History of Virginia (1705).
Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.
https://archive.org/details/historyvirginia00campgoog
BOZMAN, JOHN LEEDS
History of Maryland, 1633-1660.
Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837 (introduction 1811.)
Baltimore: John Murphy & Co.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmarylan00bozm
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog
BRADFORD, WILLIAM.
History of Plymouth Plantation.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
4th series, volume 3. Boston. 1856.)
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofplymout1162brad
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog
BRIDGES, GEORGE W.
Annals of Jamaica, volume 1.
London: J. Murray. 1827. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsofjamaica01briduoft
(Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/annalsjamaica05bridgoog
BRODHEAD, JOHN R., editor
Documents relating to the colonial history
of the state of New York.
Albany. 1856-87. 14 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/page/n7/mode/2up
History of the state of New York, volume 1.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04b/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/
(Index) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ11brod/page/n7/mode/2up
BROWN, ALEXANDER editor
The genesis of the United States [a collection of
historical mss. and tracts, with notes, etc.].
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1890. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds01brow
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds02brow
BROWN, WILLIAM HAND, editor.
Archives of Maryland.
Baltimore. 1883-.
https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000021/html/am21p--1.html
Has links to other volumes.
BURKE, EDMUND.
An account of the European settlements in America.
London: R. & J. Dodsley. 1757. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea01burk
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea02burk
BURY, Viscount.
Exodus of the western nations.
London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn01albeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn02albeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82499
CAMPBELL, CHARLES.
Introduction to the history of the colony and
ancient dominion of Virginia.
Richmond: D. B. Minor. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00campb
History of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonya00camp
CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
The Puritan in Holland, England and America.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1892. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland01camp
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland02camp
CARROLL, B. R., editor.
Historical collections of South Carolina.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1836. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle00carrgoog/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle02carrgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
CHARLEVOIX, Father PIERRE F. X. DE.
History and general description of New France (1744):
translated, with notes, by John G. Shea.
New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-7.2. 6 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32251
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32765
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde03char
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde04char
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historygenerald05achar
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde06char
CHEEVER, GEORGE B., editor
Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620.
New York: J. Wiley. 1848.
https://archive.org/details/journalofpilgrim00mouruoft
DALTON, HENRY G.
History of British Guiana, chapter 2.
London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg00daltgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
DOUGLASS, WILLIAM.
Summary, historical and political, of the British settlements
in North America.
London: R. Baldwin. 1755. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/summaryhistorica01doug/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_lc_summary-historical-political_Lande00193_v2-15869
DOYLE, JOHN A.
The American colonies (Arnold prize essay).
London: Rivingtons. 1869.
The English In America: Virginia.
Maryland and the Carolinas (1882).
The Puritan colonies (1887), 2 volumes.
London: Longmans, Green & Company.
New York: Henry Holt & Co.
https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi01doyl
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi03doyl
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi04doyl/page/n7/mode/2up/page/n7/mode/2up
DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
The making of New England, 1580-1643.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/makingofnewengla00drakrich
The making of Virginia and the middle colonies.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/makingofvirginia00drak
DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
History and antiquities of Boston, 1630-1770.
Boston: L. Stevens. 1856.
https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00dra
EDWARDS, BRYAN.
History, civil and commercial, of the British colonies
in the West Indies. [Caribs, etc.]
London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_44458
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm04edwa
https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm06edwa/page/n5/mode/2up
FERRIS, BENJAMIN.
History of the original settlements on the Delaware.
Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.
https://archive.org/details/historyoforigina00ferr
FISHER. GEORGE P.
The colonial era (American History series).
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1892.
(1906) https://archive.org/details/colonialera00fishuoft
(1910) https://archive.org/details/colonialerabygeo00fish
FISKE, JOHN.
The beginnings of New England.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1889.
(1897) https://archive.org/details/beginningsofne00fisk
FORCE, PETER. editor.
Tracts and other papers relating principally to the origin,
settlement and progress of the colonies in North America.
Washington. 1886-47. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper01forc
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper02forc
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper1844forc
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper04forc
GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.
History of Louisiana; the French domination (1851-4).
New York: William J. Widdleton. 1861.
(1867) https://archive.org/details/historyoflouisia03gaya
GOODWIN, JOHN A.
The pilgrim republic.
Boston: Ticknor & Company. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/pilgrimrepublich00good/page/n11/mode/2up
GRAHAME, JAMES.
History of the rise and progress of the United States
of North America. till 1688, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro01grah/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro02grah/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 4, 1836) https://archive.org/details/historyriseandp01grahgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
The same, enlarged [to 1776] and amended [edited by
Josiah Quincy, and published under the title of
"History of the United States"].
Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846.
HAWKS, FRANCIS L.
History of North Carolina [to 1729] (1857-60).
Fayetteville: Hale & Son. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028788374
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00lillgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00pittgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00unkngoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MzgTAAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up
HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
The French Voyageurs.
(Harper's Mag., 66: 505. 1883.)
HUBBARD, Rev. WILLIAM.
General history of New England, to 1680 (1815).
(Collections of the Massachusetts History Society,
2d series, volumes 5-11. Boston. 1848.)
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00hubb
HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
History of the colony [and province] of Massachusetts-Bay
[to 1749].
Boston: T. & J. Fleet. 1764-7. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc
LAMBRECHTSEN, N. C.
Short description of the discovery and subsequent history
of the New Netherlands (1818): [translated from the Dutch].
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 1. New York. 1841.)
LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
Short history of the English colonies in America.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/histenglishcolonies00lodgrich
MARSHALL, JOHN.
History of the colonies planted by the English on the continent
of North America.
Philadelphia: A. Small. 1824.
https://archive.org/details/plantedcolonies00marsrich
MOORE, N.
Pilgrims and Puritans: the story of the planting of Plymouth
and Boston.
Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/pilgrimspuritans00tiff
MOURT, GEORGE.
Relation, or journal of the plantation at Plymouth (1622);
with introduction and notes by H. M. Dexter.
Boston: J. K. Wiggin. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/mourtsrelationo00dextgoog
NEILL, EDWARD D.
English colonization of America during the 17th century.
London: Strahan & Company. 1871.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924032746145
History of the Virginia Company of London.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028784738
Virginia vetusta [Supplement to above].
Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/virginiavetusta00neilgoog
O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
Register of New Netherland, 1626-1674.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/registerofnewnet00ocal
PALFREY, JOHN G.
History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-1864. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl01bost
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla19palfgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla18palfgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
PRINCE, THOMAS.
Chronological history of New England [to 1633] (1736-55).
Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Company. 1826.
https://archive.org/details/achronologicalh00halegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
SAINSBURY, W. N. editor.
Calendar of state papers: colonial series
[America and the West Indies].
London: Longman. 1860-89. 3 volumes. 1860-84. 6 volumes.
(1675-1676) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa19offigoog
(1677-1680) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa08offigoog/page/n11/mode/2up
(1685-1688) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa18offigoog/page/n9/mode/2up
(1689-1692) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa14offigoog
(1696-1697) https://archive.org/details/cu31924087794685
(1719-1720) https://archive.org/details/colonialrecordsc31greauoft/page/n3/mode/2up
(1699) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa15offigoog
SHURTLEFF, N. B., editor.
Records of the governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,
1628-86. Printed by order of the Legislature.
Boston. 1853-4; 5 volumes in 6.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno01mass
(Volume 4, Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091024590
(Volume 4, Part 2) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno42mass
SHURTLEFF, N. B., and D. PULSIFER. editors.
Records of the colony of New Plymouth.
Printed by order of the Legislature.
Boston. 1855-61. 12 volumes. in 10.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo0102newp/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo05newp
https://www.plymouthcolony.net/resources/pcr.html#pcrarchive
STITH, WILLIAM.
History of the first discovery and settlement of Virginia (1747).
New York: Reprinted for Jos. Sabin. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/101292821.nlm.nih.gov/page/n3/mode/2up
TARBOX, Rev. INCREASE N.
Sir Walter Raleigh and his colony in America.
Boston: Prince Society. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/sirwalterralegh00lanegoog
TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.
General history of the United States of America to 1792.
Boston: Farrand, Mallory & Company. 1810. volume 1.
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum
(Volume 1 of 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory01trumgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum/page/n13/mode/2up
TYTLER, PATRICK F.
Historical view of the progress of discovery on the
more northern coasts of America; with natural history,
by Jas. Wilson.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1832.
New York: Harper Brothers.
https://archive.org/details/historicalviewp00goog
WHITEFIELD, WILLIAM A., editor.
Documents relating to the colonial history of the state of New
Jersey.
Newark. 1880-. 11 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati01socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati04socigoog/page/n12/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati05socigoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(William Nelson)
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati03socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati02socigoog/page/n4/mode/2up
(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati00socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up
WILSON, JAMES GRANT, editor
Memorial history of the city of New York, volume 1.
New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024757290
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo01wilsuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo02wilsuoft/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo03wilsuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo04wilsuoft/page/n13/mode/2up
WINTHROP, JOHN.
History of New England, 1630-1649 (1825-6). New edition.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1853. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal00wint/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal02wint
YOUNG, ALEXANDER.
Chronicles of the first planters of the colony of
Massachusetts Bay, 1623-1636.
Boston: Little & Brown. 1846.
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00younuoft
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn_0
Chronicles of the pilgrim fathers, 1602-1625.
Boston: Little & Brown. 1841.
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofpilg00youn
{xxv}
AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY.
ABBOTT, CHARLES. C.
Primitive Industry; or illustrations of the handiwork, in
stone, bone and clay, of the native races of the northern
Atlantic seaboard of America.
Salem: G. A. Bates. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/primitiveindustry00abborich
Traces of an American autocthon.
(American Naturalist, 10: 329. 1876.)
AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN AND ORIENTAL JOURNAL.
Chicago. 1878-.
AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY.
Proceedings.
Boston.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.
Baltimore. 1885-7.
Boston: Ginn & Company. 1888-.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON.
Proceedings (1879-).
(Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 25-.
Washington. 1882-.)
ATWATER, CALEB.
Description of the antiquities discovered in Ohio and other
western states.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
Worcester: American Antiquities Society. 1820.)
https://archive.org/details/descriptionofant0000atwa/page/n3/mode/2up
BACON, A. T.
Ruins of the Colorado valley.
(Lippincott's Magazine, 20: 521. 1880.)
BAILEY, Rev. JACOB.
Observations and conjectures on the antiquities of America.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 4. Boston. 1795.)
BALDWIN, JOHN D.
Ancient America.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1872.
https://archive.org/details/ancientamericain00bald/page/n7/mode/2up
Pre-historic nations.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1869.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.115963
BANDELIER, ADOLF
A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary Indians
of New Mexico. Report on the ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos.
Boston: A. Williams & Company. 1881.
(Papers Archæological Institute of America.)
https://archive.org/details/historicalintrod00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up
Report of an archæological tour in Mexico, in 1881.
Boston: Cupples, Upham & Company. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/archaeologmexico02bandrich/page/n5/mode/2up
BARBER, EDWIN A.
Ancient pueblos, Rio San Juan.
(American Naturalist, 12: 526, 606. 1878.)
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/272184
Pueblo pottery. (American Naturalist, 15: 453. 1881.)
Rock inscriptions of the "ancient pueblos."
(American Naturalist, 10: 716. 1876.)
BAXTER, SYLVESTER.
The father of the pueblos [Zuni].
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 72. 1882.)
BEAUCHAMP, W. M.
Indian occupation of New York.
(Science, 19: 76. 1892.)
https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau
https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau_0
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
America before Columbus.
(Bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 65-71.)
BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY.
Palæolithic implements of the valley of the Delaware;
by C. C. Abbott and others (from Proceedings, volume 21).
Cambridge. 1881.
BRINTON, DANIEL G.
The books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historic records
of the Mayas of Yucatan.
Philadelphia: Edw. Stern & Company. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/bookschilanbala00bringoog/page/n6/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cu31924020440115
Essays of an Americanist.
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/essaysofamerican00brin/page/n5/mode/2up
Prehistoric chronology of America.
(Science, 10: 76. 1887.)
BRYANT, W. C.
Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.
[Buffalo. 1890.]
BRYCE, GEORGE.
The mound builders.
Winnipeg Historical Society. 1884-5.
https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00bryc
CARR, LUCIEN.
The mounds of the Mississippi valley, historically considered.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924104076934
CHARNAY, DÉSIRÉ.
Ancient cities of the new world, being voyages and
explorations in Mexico and Central America, 1857-82;
translated from the French by J. Gonino and H. S. Conant.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/ancientcitiesofn00char_1
CONANT, A. J.
Footprints of vanished races in the Mississippi valley.
St. Louis: C. R. Barns. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/footprintsvanrace00conarich
CUSHING, FRANK H.
The nation of the willows [Zunis].
(Atlantic Monthly, 50: 362,541. 1882.)
Zuni social, mythic and religious systems.
(Popular Science Monthly, 21: 186. 1882.)
DALL, W. H.
On the remains of later pre-historic man obtained from caves
in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska (1876).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924104074822/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/ontheremains00dallrich/page/n5/mode/2up
EVERETT, J. T.
The earliest American people.
(Magazine of American History, 22: 114. 1889.)
https://archive.org/details/magazineamerica05stevgoog
https://archive.org/stream/magazineamerica05stevgoog/magazineamerica05stevgoog_djvu.txt
FISKE, JOHN.
The discovery of America.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1892. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk
FORCE, M. F.
Some early notices of the Indians of Ohio;
to what race did the mound builders belong.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/someearlynotice00ohiogoog
FOSTER, J. W.
Prehistoric races of the United States of America:
Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricraces00fostiala/page/n5/mode/2up
GANNETT, HENRY.
Prehistoric ruins in southern Colorado.
(Popular Science Monthly, 16: 666. 1880.)
HABEL, S.
The sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala (1878).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
(French) https://archive.org/details/sculpturesdesant00habe
HALE, HORATIO.
Indian migrations, as evidenced by language; comprising the
Huron-Cherokee stock, Dakota, Algonkins, Chahta-Muskoki,
mound-builders, Iberians.
Chicago. 1883.
(American Association for the Advancement of Science., 1882,
American Antiquarian, January, April, 1883.)
https://archive.org/details/indianmigrations00halerich
HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
Peabody Museum of American archæology and ethnology. Reports.
Cambridge. 1868-.
HAVEN, SAMUEL F.
Archæology of the United States. (1855).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 8.
Washington. 1856.)
https://archive.org/details/archologyunited00havegoog/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/archaeologyus00haverich
HIGGINSON, T. W.
The first Americans.
(Harper's Magazine, 65: 342. 1882.)
HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER von.
Researches concerning the Institutions and monuments of the
ancient inhabitants of America;
translated by Helen M. Williams.
London: Longman 1814. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/researchesconcer01humb
JACKSON, W. H.
Ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado.
(American Naturalist, 10: 31. 1876.)
JONES, CHARLES C. Jr.
Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the
Georgia tribes.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0?view=theater
Monumental remains of Georgia, part 1.
Savannah: J. M. Cooper & Company. 1861.
https://archive.org/details/monumentalremain01jone
JONES, JOSEPH
Explorations of the aboriginal remains of Tennessee (1876).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHÆOLOGY.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891-.
KINGSBOROUGH, Lord.
Antiquities of Mexico: comprising fac-similes of ancient
Mexican paintings and hieroglyphics, etc., illustrated by many
valuable inedited mss.
London. R. Havell. 1830-48. 9 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi1King
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv2King
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv3King
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi4King
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi5King
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi6King
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi7King
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv8King
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv9King
LAPHAM, I. A.
The antiquities of Wisconsin (1853),
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 7.
Washington 1855.)
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofwis00laph
LARKIN, FREDERICK.
Ancient man in America. 1880.
MacLEAN, J. P.
The mound builders.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.
https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00maclgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
MINDELEFF, V.
Origin of pueblo architecture.
(Science, 9: 593. 1887.)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19856/19856-h/19856-h.htm
MITCHILL, Dr. SAMUEL.
Communications [on American antiquities, ethnology, etc.].
(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1820.)
MOOREHEAD, WARREN K.
Fort Ancient, the great prehistoric earthwork of Warren
County, Ohio; compiled from a careful survey.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/fortancientgrea00moorgoog
NADAILLAC, Marquis de.
Prehistoric America (1882);
translated by N. d'Anvers.
edited by W. H. Dall.
New York: G. W. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_52727/page/n7/mode/2up
NEWBERRY, JOHN S.
Ancient civilizations of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, 41: 187. 1892.)
OHIO STATE ARCHÆOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
Report on the antiquities of Ohio.
(Final report of the Ohio State board of Centennial managers.
Columbus. 1877.)
PEET, Reverend STEPHEN D.
Prehistoric America.
Chicago: American Antiquarian Office. 1890-. 5 volumes. volume 1.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932
The mound builders, volume 2.
Emblematic mounds and animal effigies.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri01peetuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri02peet
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri04peet/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri03peet
https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri05peet
https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932
https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416924/page/n7/mode/2up
PHILADELPHIA. Numismatic and Antiquarian Society.
Proceedings.
POWELL, J. W.
Annual reports of the Bureau of Ethnology.
Washington.
(1) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up
(7) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26568/26568-h/26568-h.htm
(1st) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up
(10th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu108889smit
(11th)https://archive.org/details/eleventhannualre1889powe
(12th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit
(Pubs) https://ia902705.us.archive.org/26/items/listofpubethno00smitrich/listofpubethno00smitrich.pdf
Prehistoric man in America.
(Forum, 8: 489. 1890.)
PRIEST, JOSIAH.
American antiquities and discoveries in the west, 2d edition,
revised.
Albany: Hoffman 1835
https://archive.org/details/americanantiqui05priegoog
PUTNAM, F. W.
Archæological notes, and other pamphlets.
Prehistoric remains in the Ohio valley.
(Century, 17: 698. 1890.)
QUATREFAGES, A. DE.
The peopling of America.
(Popular Science Monthly, 38: 305. 1891.)
RAU, CHARLES.
The archæological collection of the United States National
Museum (1876).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.
Washington. 1880.)
https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalc00raugoog
The Palenque tablet in the United States National Museum (1879).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge,
volume 22. Washington. 1880.)
https://archive.org/details/palenquetabletin00rauc
{xxvi}
READ, Matthew Canield
Archæology of Ohio.
Cleveland: Western Reserve History Society. [1888.]
https://archive.org/details/archaeologyohio00readrich
REISS, W., and A. STÜBEL.
The necropolis of Ancon in Peru.
Berlin: A. Asher & Company. 1880-7. 8 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/gri_33125012875635
RIO, Don ANTONIO DEL.
Description of the ruins of an ancient city, discovered near
Palengue, Guatemala (1787); translated: [also] Teatro Critico
Americano, by Dr. Paul Felix Cabrera.
London: Henry Berthoud. 1822.
https://archive.org/details/descriptionofrui00roan_0
RIVERO, MARIANO EDW., and JOHN JAMES VON TSCHUDI.
Peruvian antiquities: translated from the Spanish by
Francis L. Hawks.
New York: G. P. Putnam. 1853.
https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog
ST. LOUIS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.
Contributions to the archæology of Missouri, part 1: Pottery.
Salem: George A. Bates. 1880.
SHORT, JOHN T.
The North Americans of antiquity; their origin, migrations and
type of civilization considered.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/northamericansof00shorrich
STEPHENS, JOHN L.
Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave11841step
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentstravel07stepgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0001
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0002
Incidents of travel In Yucatan.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelinyucatan01step
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave01step_1
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/travelyucatan02step
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave21843step
SQUIER E. G.
Aboriginal monuments of New York. (1849).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 2.
Washington. 1851.)
https://archive.org/details/aboriginalmonume0000squi/page/n5/mode/2up
Antiquities of the state of New York; with a
supplement on the antiquities of the west.
Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Company. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsta00squirich
Nicaragua: its people, scenery, monuments.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1852. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_nicaraguaits01squi
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nicaraguaitspeo05squigoog/page/n8/mode/2up
SQUIER E. G., and E. H. DAVIS.
Ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley (1847).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 1.
Washington. 1848.)
https://archive.org/details/ancientmonuments00squi
THOMAS, CYRUS.
Catalogue of prehistoric works east of the Rocky Mountains.
Washington. 1891.
(Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
https://archive.org/details/catalogueprehis01thomgoog
The Cherokees In pre-Columbian times.
New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1800.
https://archive.org/details/cherokeesinpreco00thom
The circular, square, and octagonal earthworks of Ohio.
Washington. 1889. (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
https://archive.org/details/b30477633
The problem of the Ohio mounds.
Washington. 1889.
(Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)
https://archive.org/details/problemofohiomou01thom
A study of the Manuscript Troano.
(United States geography and geological survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 5.
Washington. 1882.)
https://archive.org/details/studyofmanuscrip00thom_0/page/n5/mode/2up
THRUSTON, GATES P.
The antiquities of Tennessee and the adjacent states, and the
state of aboriginal society in the scale of civilization
represented by them.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/antiquitiestenn00thurrich
UNITED STATES.
Bureau of Ethnology, John W. Powell, director.
Annual reports. Washington.
See POWELL, J. W.
WALLACE, A. R.
American museums, of American pre-historic archæology.
(Fortnightly Review, 48: 665. 1887.)
WHITTLESEY, CHARLES.
Description of ancient works in Ohio (1850).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 3.
Washington. 1852.)
https://archive.org/details/descriptionsofan00whit
WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.
Narrative and critical history of America, volume 1.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1886. 8 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica02wins
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica03wins
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica05wins
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica06wins
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica07wins
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica08wins
AMERICAN ABORIGINES,
ADAIR, JAMES.
The history of the American Indians, particularly those
nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida,
Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia.
London: E. & C. Dilly. 1775.
https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica00adairich
ALLEN, PAUL.
History of the expedition under the command of Lewis and
Clarke, to the Pacific Ocean, 1804-6.
Philadelphia. Dublin: J. Christie. 1817. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti01allegoog/page/n12/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti04allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti02allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti03allegoog/page/n15/mode/2up
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS:
Indian affairs, 1789-1827.
Washington: 1852-4. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanstatepap_c11unit
ATWATER, CALEB.
Remarks made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829.
Columbus, Ohio: I. N. Whiting. 1831.
https://archive.org/details/remarksmadeontou00atwa
BANCROFT, GEORGE.
History of the United States of America; the authors's last
revision, volume 2.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1883-5. 6 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.506697
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala
BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
The native races of the Pacific States of North America.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1874-6. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeraces01bancrich
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci03bancgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci02bancgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci01bancgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci00bancgoog
https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci04bancgoog/page/n18/mode/2up
BARROWS, William.
The Indian's side of the Indian question.
Boston: D. Lothrop & Company. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_03383
BEACH, W. W., editor.
The Indian miscellany.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/rsindianmiscella00beacuoft
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.
The Indian question (list in Bulletins,
volume 4, pages 68-70).
BRINTON, DANIEL G.
The American race; a linguistic classification and
ethnographic description of the native tribes of North and
South America.
New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55096
Races and peoples: lectures on the science of ethnography.
New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57315
https://archive.org/details/racesandpeoplesl57315gut
BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S.
The story of the American Indian, his origin, development,
decline and destiny.
Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/storyofamericani00broo/page/n5/mode/2up
BROWN, ROBERT.
The races of mankind, volume 1.
London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin. 1873-6: 4 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/racesofmankindbe01browuoft
BROWNELL, CHARLES DE WOLF.
The Indian races of North and South America.
New York: American Subscription House. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/indianracesofnor00brow
CANADA.
Department of Indian affairs.
Annual reports. Ottawa.
CATLIN, GEORGE.
Illustrations of the manners, customs and condition of the
North American Indians (1841).
London: Henry G. Bohn. 1861. 2 volumes.
Chatto & Windus. 1876. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm01catl
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm02catl
North American portfolio of hunting scenes, etc.
London: H. Bohn. 1844.
https://archive.org/details/Ayer_250_45_C2_1844_Catlin/page/n27/mode/2up
CHARLEVOIX, Father.
Letters to the Dutchess of Lesdiguieres [containing account of
the North American tribes, 1720-22; translated]
London. 1763.
https://archive.org/details/letterstodutche00char
COLDEN, CADWALLADER.
History of the five Indian nations of Canada, which are
dependent on the province of New York in America.
New York. 1727.
[Enlarged edition].
London. 1747.
https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-131832-5200
COLTON, C.
Tour of the American lakes in 1830.
London: F. Westley & A. H. Davis. 1833. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tourofamericanla0000colt/page/n1/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak00coltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak01coltgoog
CRAIG, NEVILLE B., editor.
The olden time.
Pittsburg. 1846-8.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1876. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/GR_3089-1/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/oldentimeamonth00craigoog
DODGE, Colonel RICHARD I.
Our wild Indians: thirty-three years' personal experience
among the red men of the great west; with an introduction by
Gen. Sherman.
Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Company. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/ourwildindiansth00dodgrich
DOMENECH, Abbé EM.
Seven years' residence in the great deserts of North America.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsreside01domeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsresid00domegoog
DONALDSON, THOMAS
The George Catlin Indian gallery, United States National
Museum, Washington.
(Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1885, part 2.)
DRAKE, FRANCIS S.
Indian history for young folks.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/indianhistoryfo00dowdgoog/page/n12/mode/2up
DRAKE, SAMUEL G.
The aboriginal races of North America, 15th edition.
Philadelphia: C. Desilver & Sons. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/aboriginalraceso01drak
Biography and history of the Indians of North America.
(1841), 11th edition.
Boston: B. B. Mussey & Company. 1851.
(Edition 8) https://archive.org/details/cihm_34854
(Edition 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37353
The old Indian chronicle; being a collection of exceeding rare
tracts written and published in the time of king Philip's war.
Boston: Antiquarian Institute. 1836.
https://archive.org/details/oldindianchroni00lithgoog
ELLIS, GEORGE E.
The red man and the white man in North America.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028719007
https://archive.org/details/redmanwhitemanin00ellirich
FIELD, THOMAS. W.
An essay towards an Indian bibliography.
New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Company. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsindi00fielrich
FLETCHER, ALICE C.
Indian education and civilization; a report.
Washington. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/indianeducationa00unitrich
GALLATIN, ALBERT.
A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836.)
Writings; edited by H. Adams. Lippincott. 1879. 3 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/synopsisofindian01gall/page/n3/mode/2up
HOLMES, Reverend ABIEL.
Annals of America, 1492-1826 (1895).
Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47268/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich
(Volume 2, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269
HUMBOLDT ALEXANDER VON.
Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of
the new continent, 1799-1804, by Alexander de Humboldt and
Aimé Bonpland;
translated by Helen Maria Williams, volume 5, pages 315-334.
London: Longman. 1826. 7 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati00humbgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati01humbgoog/page/n10/mode/2up
INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
Annual reports of the executive committee.
Philadelphia.
( 6th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(30th, 1912) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe02commgoog
(31st, 1913) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
JACKSON. Mrs. HELEN HUNT.
A century of dishonor (1881). New edition, with appendix.
Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1885.
https://archive.org/details/centuryofdishono005246mbp/page/n23/mode/2up
KINGSLEY, JOHN STERLING, editor.
The standard natural history, volume 6.
Boston: S. E. Cassino & Company. 1885. 6 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh01king
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh02king
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924003839358/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh03king
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh04king/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh05king/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh06king/page/n11/mode/2up
KIP, Reverend WILLIAM INGRAHAM.
The early Jesuit, missions in North America; composed and
translated from the letters of the French Jesuits.
New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip/page/n7/mode/2up
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipw_0
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi02kipw
LAHONTAN, Baron.
New voyages to North America, containing an account of the
several nations of that vast continent, 1683-1694 (1703):
[translated from the French.] 2d edition.
London. 1735. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort01laho
(Volume 2, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort02laho/page/n7/mode/2up
{xxvii}
LAKE MOHONK annual conference of friends of the Indian.
Proceedings. Philadelphia.
https://www.maquah.net/Historical/Mohonk.html
(17th, 1890)https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu00unkngoog
(1896) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu01unkngoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(17th, 1899) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu39unkngoog
McKENNEY, THOMAS L., and JAMES HALL.
History of the Indian tribes of North America, with 120
portraits from the Indian gallery at Washington (1838-44).
Philadelphia: D. Rice & A. N. Hart. 1854. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant01mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant02mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up
MANYPENNY, GEORGE W.
Our Indian wards.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/Ayer_155_M25_1880
MASON, Professor OTIS T., editor.
Miscellaneous papers relating to anthropology, from the
Smithsonian report for 1881.
Washington. 1883.
MASSACHUSETTS.
The Indian question; report of the committee appointed by
Governor Long.
Boston. 1880.
MORGAN, LEWIS H.
Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.
Washington. 1881.
(U. S. geographic and geological survey,
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)
https://archive.org/details/houseshouselifeo00morg_0
Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family
(1868). (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 17.
Washington. 1871.)
https://archive.org/details/systemsofconsang00morgrich/page/n21/mode/2up
MORSE, Reverend JEDIDIAH.
A report to the secretary of war of the United States, on
Indian affairs, comprising a narrative of a tour in 1820.
New Haven: S. Converse. 1822.
https://archive.org/details/reporttosecretar00mors
MORTON, SAMUEL G.
Crania Americana; or a comparative view of the skulls of
various aboriginal nations of North and South America.
Philadelphia: J. Penington. 1839.
https://archive.org/details/Craniaamericana00Mort
NOTT, J. C., GEORGE. R. GLIDDON, and others.
Indigenous races of the earth.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/indigenousraceso01nott
OTIS, ELWELL S.
The Indian question.
New York: Sheldon & Company. 1878.
https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00otisrich
PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
History of the conspiracy of Pontiac (1851).
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1888. 2 volumes.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39253
The Jesuits in North America.
Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1867.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6933
PESCHEL, OSCAR.
The races of man and their geographical distribution;
from the German. (1874).
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1876.
(1876) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501969
(1888) https://archive.org/details/racesofmantheirg00pescuoft
PRICHARD, JAMES C.
Researches into the physical history of mankind (1813). 2d ed.
London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop08pricgoog
(Volume 1, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop03pricgoog
(Volume 1, 1836) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop06pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 2, 1837) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop02pricgoog
(Volume 2, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop04pricgoog
(Volume 3, 1811) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop09pricgoog
(Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop10pricgoog
(Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop05pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 4, 1844) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop01pricgoog
(Volume 5, 1847) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop07pricgoog
RADISSON, PETER ESPRIT.
Voyages, being an account of his travels and experiences among
the North American Indians, 1652-1684; with historical
illustrations and an introduction by Gideon D. Scull.
Boston: Prince Society. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/voyagespeteresp00sculgoog/page/n14/mode/2up
RAWLE, WILLIAM.
A vindication of Heckewelder's "History of the Indian
nations." (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society,
volume 1.
Philadelphia. 1826.
J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864.)
https://archive.org/details/5f1b0c76-4bcd-4e48-b937-081944dc88aa/mode/2up
ROGERS, Major ROBERT.
A concise account of North America.
London. 1765.
https://archive.org/details/aconciseaccount00rogeuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
Historical and statistical information respecting the history,
condition and prospects of the Indian tribes; prepared under
the direction of the Bureau of Indian affairs.
Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1851-5. 5 volumes.
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924032190161
(Part 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis02scho
(Part 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091889976
(Part 4) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatipt4scho
(Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis05scho
(Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstati00schoa
(Part 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis06scho/page/n7/mode/2up
SHALER, NATHANIEL S.
Nature and man in America.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1891.
(1891) https://archive.org/details/natureandmanina00shalgoog
(1924) https://archive.org/details/naturemaninameri00
STANFORD'S COMPENDIUM OF GEOGRAPHY AND TRAVEL:
North America; edited and enlarged by Professor F. V. Hayden
and Professor A. R. C. Selwyn.
London: E. Stanford. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86162
STANLEY'S PORTRAITS OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS IN SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION.
Catalogue (1852).
(Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 2. Washington. 1862.)
https://archive.org/details/portraitsnaindians00stanrich
THATCHER, B. B.
Indian biography.
New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54898
(Volume 2) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54072
UNITED STATES.
Board of Indian Commissioners. Annual reports. Washington.
(2nd, 1870) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo02unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(3rd, 1871) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo03unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(4th, 1872) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo04unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
(5th, 1873) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo05unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(6th, 1874) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo06unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(7th, 1875) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo07unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up
(8th, 1876) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo08unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
(17th, 1885) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo17unitrich
(20th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/20annualreport00unitrich
(1928) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo00unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up
Commissioner of Indian affairs. Annual reports. Washington.
WALKER, FRANCIS A.
The Indian question.
Boston: J. R. Osgood & Company. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00walk
WOMEN'S NATIONAL INDIAN ASSOCIATION.
Annual reports. Philadelphia.
AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
SPECIAL TRIBES, GROUPS AND REGIONS.
AB-SA-RA-KA, HOME OF THE CROWS.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/absarakahomeofcr00carr/page/n5/mode/2up
BANDELIER, ADOLF F.
The delight makers.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1890.
https://archive.org/details/delightmakers00bandrich
The gilded man (El Dorado).
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/gildedmaneldorad00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up
BARTRAM, WILLIAM.
Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc.
[1773-8]. [Creeks, Cherokees and Choctaws.]
Philadelphia. 1791.
https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughno00bart
BEAUCHAMP, William Martin
The Iroquois trail; in which are included David Cusick's
sketches of ancient history of the six nations.
Fayetteville, New York: H. C. Beauchamp. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_04555
BECKWOURTH, JAMES P., Chief of the Crows.
Life and adventures (1856).
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1858.
https://archive.org/details/lifeadventuresof00beckrich
BENSON, HENRY C.
Life among the Choctaw Indians.
Cincinnati: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/lifeamongchoctaw00bens
BIART, LUCIEN.
The Aztecs, their history, manners and customs (1885);
translated from the French, by J. L. Garner.
Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1887.
(1919) https://archive.org/details/aztecstheirhist01garngoog
BLACKBIRD, ANDREW J. (MACK-AW-DE-BE-NESSY).
History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, a
grammar of their language, etc.
Ypsilanti, Michigan. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/completebothearl01blac
BLAKE, Lady.
The Beothuks of Newfoundland.
(Nineteenth Century, 24: 899. 1888.)
BRETT, Reverend W. H.
The Indian tribes of Guiana.
London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/indiantribesofgu00bret
BRINTON, DANIEL G., editor.
The annals of the Cakchiquels; the original text, with a
translation, notes and introduction.
Philadelphia. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/bp_684862
The Lenâpé and their legends, with the complete text and
symbols of the Walam Olum.
Philadelphia. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/lenptheirleg00brin
Editor. The Maya chronicles.
Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/mayachronicles00briniala
Notes on the Floridian peninsula.
Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/notesonfloridia01bringoog
The Shawnees and their migrations.
(Historical magazine, volume. 10, January, 1866.)
BRODHEAD, JOHN Romeyn
History of the state of New York., volume 1.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853-71. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof01brod_0
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod
CASWELL, Mrs. HARRIET S.
Our life among the Iroquois Indians.
Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/ourlifeamongiroq00caswiala
CATON, JOHN D.
The last of the Illinois, and a sketch of the Pottawatomies
(1870).
(Fergus historical series.)
Chicago: Fergus Printing Company. 1876.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_04014
CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.
Mississippi, as a province, territory and state.
Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880. volume 1.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028795405
CLARKE, PETER D.
Origin and traditional history of the Wyandotts, etc.
Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Company. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/origintraditiona00clar
COPWAY, GEORGE (KAH-GE-GA-GAH-BOWH), Chief.
Traditional history and characteristic sketches of the Ojibway
nation.
London: C. Gilpin. 1850.
https://archive.org/details/traditionalhist00bookgoog
COX, ROSS.
Adventures on the Columbia River.
London. 2 volumes.
New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/adventuresoncolu00coxr
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.7215
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33605
COZZENS, SAMUEL W.
The marvellous country; or, three years in Arizona and New
Mexico, the Apaches' home (1873).
Boston: Lee & Shepard.
https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountry00cozzrich/page/n9/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozz_0
https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozzrich
CRANTZ, DAVID.
History of Greenland, book 4 (volume 1).
London: 1767. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgree01cran
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgreen02cran
CRUISE OF THE REVENUE-STEAMER CORWIN IN ALASKA AND THE North West
ARCTIC OCEAN IN 1881.
Washington. 1883. (H. of Rep's, 47th congress, 2d session.
Ex. doc. 105.)
https://archive.org/details/cruiseofrevenues00muir
CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON.
My adventures in Zuni.
(Century, volumes 3-4, December, 1882, February, May, 1883.)
https://archive.org/details/zunifolktales00cushrich
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48342
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/zuibreadstuff00cush/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/zuifetiches00cush/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cu31924104094010
CUSTER, General. G. A.
My life on the plains.
New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/mylifeonplainsor00cust
DALL, WILLIAM. H.
Tribes of the extreme northwest.
(United States geography and geology survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
Washington. 1877.)
https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno01dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
DALTON, HENRY G.
History of British Guiana, volume 1.
London: Longman. 1855. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog
https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog/mode/2up
DEFOREST, JOHN W.
History of the Indians of Connecticut (1853).
Albany: J. Munsell. 1871.
(1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc00darlgoog
(1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc01darlgoog
DENTON, DANIEL.
A brief description of New York; likewise a brief relation of
the customs of the Indians there (1670).
New York: William Gowans. 1845.
https://archive.org/details/briefdescription11dent/page/n13/mode/2up
DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN
An account of the Abipones, an equestrian people of Paraguay
(1784); from the Latin.
London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone04dobr
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone05dobr
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/accountofabiponex03dobr
(Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50629
(Volume 2) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50621
(Volume 3) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50623
DODGE. J. R.
Red men of the Ohio valley, 1650-1795.
Springfield, Ohio: Ruralist Publishing Company. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/redmenofohiovall00dodg
{xxviii}
DORSEY, JAMES OWEN.
The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana.
Salem. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofbilo0047dors/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/jstor-534279/page/n1/mode/2up
The gentile system of the Siletz tribes.
https://archive.org/details/jstor-532806/page/n1/mode/2up
Migrations of Siouan tribes.
(American Naturalist, volume 20, March, 1886.)
https://archive.org/details/jstor-2449921/page/n1/mode/2up
DUNBAR, J. B.
The Pawnee Indians.
(Magazine of American History, volume 4, April, 1880.)
EASTMAN, Mrs. MARY.
Dahcotah; or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort
Snelling.
New York: John Wiley. 1849.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_35037
EELLS, MYRON.
Indians of Puget Sound.
(American Antiquarian, 9: 1,271. 10: 26, 174. 1887-8.)
EGGLESTON, EDWARD, and LILLIE E. SEELYE.
Pocahontas.
New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. [1879.]
https://archive.org/details/pocahontas00seel
GATSCHET, ALBERT S.
The Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon.
Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.
(United States geographical and geological survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)
https://archive.org/details/klamathindiansof02gatsuoft
https://archive.org/details/cihm_52744/page/n7/mode/2up
A migration legend of the Creek Indians, with a linguistic,
historic and ethnographic introduction.
Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884. volume 1.
(Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49031
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924096785484
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/migrationcreek00gatsrich
GIBBS, GEORGE.
Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
(United States geographical and geological survey.
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.
Washington. 1877.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_14847/page/n9/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno00dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
GOOKIN, DANIEL.
Historical account of the doings and sufferings of the
Christian Indians of New England.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 2.
Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1886.)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Historical_Account_of_the_Doings_and_Suf.html?id=Qmhumu27RG0C
Historical collections of the Indians in New England.
(Collections of the Mass. Historical Society, volume 1.
Boston. 1792.)
GRANT, Mrs. ANNE (of Laggan).
Memoirs of an American lady [Mrs. Philip Schuyler] (1808).
(Mohawks.) New York.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsanameric03grangoog
GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD.
Pawnee hero stories and folk-tales, with notes on the origin,
customs and character of the Pawnee people.
New York: Forest and Stream Pub. Company, 1889.
(1893) https://archive.org/details/pawneeherostorie00grinrich/page/n3/mode/2up
GWYTHER, G.
Pueblo Indians.
(Overland Monthly, 6: 260. 1871.)
HALE, HORATIO, editor.
The Iroquois book of rites.
Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924099385514
HARDACRE, EMMA C.
The cliff-dwellers.
(Scribner's Monthly, 17: 266. 1878.)
HAUGHTON, JAMES
Additional memoir of the Moheagans.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, volume 9.
Boston. 1804.)
https://archive.org/details/memoirjameshaug00hauggoog
HEALY, Capt. M. A.
Report of the cruise of the revenue marine steamer Corwin in
the Arctic Ocean in 1885.
Washington. 1887. (House of Representatives,
49th congress, 1st session. Ex. doc. 153.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_04426
HEARNE, SAMUEL.
A journey from Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769-72.
London: A. Strahan & T. Cadell. 1795.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38404
https://archive.org/details/journeyfromprin00hear
HECKEWELDER, Reverend JOHN.
History of the manners and customs of the Indian nations
who once inhabited Pennsylvania, etc. (1818; new edition,
with introduction by Reverend William C. Reichel.
Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 12.
Philadelphia. 1876).
https://archive.org/details/histmannerscust00heckrich
Narrative of the mission of the United Brethren among
the Delaware and Mohegan Indians, 1740-1808.
Philadelphia: M'Carthy & Davis. 1820.
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofmissi00heck
HENRY, ALEXANDER
Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories,
1760-76.
New York: I. Riley. 1809.
(1809) https://archive.org/details/travelsandadven00henrgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventur00henr
(1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventure00henr/page/n7/mode/2up
HILLARD, G. S.
Life of captain John Smith.
(Library of American biography: conducted by Jared Sparks. 1884.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 10 volumes.)
https://archive.org/details/lifeofcaptainjoh00simms
https://archive.org/details/lifecaptainsmith00simmrich
HIND, HENRY YOULE.
Explorations in the interior of the Labrador peninsula; the
country of the Montagnais and Nasquapee Indians.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42676
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/explorationsinin021863hind
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42677
Narrative of the Canadian Red River exploring expedition of
1857, and of the Assinniboine and Saskatchewan expedition of 1858.
London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_35699
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofcanad02hind
HOWARD, OLIVER OTIS.
Nez Percé Joseph; an account of his ancestors, his lands, etc.
Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/nezpercejoseph01howa
https://archive.org/details/nezpercejosepha01howagoog
HUBBARD, J. NILES.
An account of Sa·go-ye-wat·ha, or Red Jacket and his people,
1750-1830.
Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/accountofsagoyew00hubbuoft
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7339
HUNTER, JOHN D.
Manners and customs of several Indian tribes located west of
the Mississippi.
Philadelphia. 1823.
https://archive.org/details/mannerscustoms00huntrich
Memoirs of a captivity among the Indians.
London: Longman. 1824.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsacaptivi01huntgoog
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82979
HURT, Dr. GARLAND.
Indians of Utah. (Simpson's Report of explorations, 1850.
Washington. 1876.)
HUTCHINSON, THOMAS. J.
The Parana.
London: Edward Stanford. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/paranwithincide00hutcgoog
IM THURN, EVERARD FERDINAND.
Among the Indians of Guiana.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Company. 1883.
https://archive.org/details/amongindiansgui00thurgoog
IRVING, JOHN TREAT.
Indian sketches taken during a United States expedition to
make treaties with the Pawnee and other tribes of Indians in
1833 (1833).
New York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/indiansketchest01irvigoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/GR_2157-2
https://archive.org/details/indiansketchesta00irvirich/page/ii/mode/2up
JAMES, EDWIN, comp.
Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky
Mountains., 1819-20, under command of Major Long.
Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1823. 2 volumes, with atlas.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofexpedit01jame
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/account02ofexpeditjame
JEWITT, JOHN R.
Narrative of adventures and sufferings among the Indians of
Nootka Sound.
Ithaca, New York: Andrus, Gauntlett & Company. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jewi
JOGUES PAPERS, THE (1642-6);
translated, with a memoir, by J. G. Shea.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society,
2d series, volume 3. New York, 1857.)
JOHNSON, ELIAS, Tuscarora chief.
Legends, traditions and laws of the Iroquois or six
nations, and history of the Tuscarora Indians.
Lockport. 1881.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_24792
https://archive.org/details/bp_583763/page/3/mode/2up
JONES, Reverend PETER (KAHKEWAQUONABY).
History of the Ojebway Indians.
London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.
https://archive.org/details/historyofojebway00jone
KEATING, WILLIAM H., comp.
Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter's River,
Lake Winnepeek, &c., in 1823, under command of Major Long.
Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1824. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofexped01keat
https://archive.org/details/narrativeofanexp010860mbp/page/n7/mode/2up
KETCHUM, WILLIAM.
Authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some
account of its early inhabitants; comprising historic notices
of the six nations [Senecas, chiefly].
Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker & Hill. 1864. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc01ketcgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc00ketcgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/authenticcompreh02ketc
KIDDER, FREDERIC.
The Abenaki Indians. (Collections of the Main Historical
Society., volume 6. Portland: 1859.)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25416
https://archive.org/details/abenakiindiansw00kiddgoog
https://archive.org/details/cihm_36479
KIP, Reverend. WILLIAM INGRAHAM, compo. and translator.
The early Jesuit missions in North America; from the letters
of the Fr. Jesuits, with notes.
New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1873.
https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip
https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipwrich
KOHL, J. G.
Kitchi-gami; wanderings round Lake Superior [translated from
the German]. [Ojibbewas.] London: Chapman & Hall. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/kitchigamiwander00kohl/page/n7/mode/2up
LA ROCHEFOUCAULT LIANCOURT, Duc de.
Travels through the United States, the country of the Iroquois
and upper Canada, 1795-7.
London. 1799.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughun01larorich
LE CLERCQ, Father CHRISTIAN.
First establishment of the faith in New France (1691); now
first translation, with notes, by John G. Shea.
New York: J. G. Shea. 1881. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme01lecl
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme02lecl
LEWIS AND CLARKE.
Journal to the Rocky Mountains., 1804-6, as related by Patrick
Gass (1807).
Dayton: Ells, Claflin & Company. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/lewisclarksjourn00gassrich
LORD, JOHN K.
The naturalist in Vancouver's Island and British Columbia,
volume 2.
London: Richard Bentley. 1866. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc01lord
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc00lord
LOSKIEL, GEORGE HENRY.
History of the mission of the United Brethren among the Indians
of North America; translated from the German by C. I. La Trobe.
London 1794.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiss00losk
https://archive.org/details/historyofmission01losk
LUMMIS, CHARLES. F.
The land of poco tiempo [New Mexico].
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924028915036
McKENNA, J. A. J.
Indians of Canada.
(Catholic World, 53: 350. 1891.)
McKENNEY, THOMAS. L.
Sketches of a tour to the lakes [1826],
the Chippeway Indians, etc.
Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr. 1827.
https://archive.org/details/sketchesatourto01mckegoog
MARCY, Colonel R. B.
Thirty years of army life on the border.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsofarm01marc
MARCY, Colonel. R. B., and GEORGE. D. McCLELLAN.
Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana In 1852.
[Comanches and Kiowas.]
Washington. 1854. (House of Representatives, 33d congress,
1st session Ex. doc)
https://archive.org/details/explorationredr00mcclgoog
MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.
Historical writings relating to the early history of the west;
with introduction by William L. Stone.
Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/historicalwritin01mars
https://archive.org/details/historicalwriti00marsgoog/page/n21/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cihm_09926
The Niagara frontier; read before the Buffalo Historical Club.
February 27, 1865. [Buffalo: The author.]
https://archive.org/details/niagarafrontiere00mars/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/cihm_40160
MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.
Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.
Washington. 1877.
(United States geographical and geological survey.
F. V. Hayden in charge: miscellaneous publications. No.7.)
https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp00mattgoog
https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp01mattgoog
https://archive.org/details/ethnographyphilo00mattrich
https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_hid_morsyn-2
MEGAPOLENSIS, J., Jr.
Short sketch of the Mohawk Indians in New Netherland (1644);
translated, revised, with an introduction, by J. H. Brodhead.
(Collections of the New York Historical Society. 2d series,
volume 3.
New York. 1857.)
MEMOIR OF THE PEQUOTS, etc.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 10. Boston. 1800.)
MILLER, JOAQUIN.
Unwritten history; life amongst the Modocs.
Hartford: American Pub. Company. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/amongstthemodocs00millrichs://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich
https://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich
MILLER. WILLIAM. J.
Notes concerning the Wampanoag tribe of Indians.
Providence: S. S. Rider. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/notesconcerningw00mill/page/n5/mode/2up
{xxix}
MINER, LEWIS H.
The valley of Wyoming.
New York: Robert H. Johnston & Company. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/valleywyomingro00minegoog
https://archive.org/details/valleyofwyomingr00mine
MÖLLHAUSEN, BALDWIN.
Diary of a journey from the Mississippi to the coasts of the
Pacific, with a United States government expedition [1853-4];
translated by Mrs. Percy Sinnett.
London: Longman. 1858. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryajourneyfr00sinngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/Diaryjourneyfro11Moll
MORELET, ARTHUR.
Travels in Central America; translated from the French by
Mrs. M. F. Squier; introduction by M. G. Squier.
London: Trübner & Company. 1871.
New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1871.
https://archive.org/details/travelsincentra00moregoog
MORGAN, LEWIS H.
League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.
Rochester: Sage & Brother. 1851.
https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg
(2 volumes, 1922) https://archive.org/details/hodenosaunee00morgrich
https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg
Report on the fabrics, inventions, implements and utensils of
the Iroquois, made to the regents of the university [of New
York.], 1851.
NEW YORK STATE.
Commissioners of Indian affairs, for the extinguishment of
Indian titles. Proceedings, with introduction and notes by
F. B. Hough.
Albany: Joel Munsell. 1861. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy_0
https://archive.org/details/bp_616923/page/n3/mode/2up
Regents of the university. Annual reports on the condition of
the state cabinet of natural history and the historical and
antiquarian collection.
Albany.
Special committee to Investigate the Indian problem.
Report. Albany. 1889.
NORMAN, B. M.
Rambles in Yucatan; including a visit to the remarkable ruins
of Chi-Chen, Kabah, Zayi, and Uxmal.
New York: J. & H. G. Langley. 1842.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57074
https://archive.org/details/ramblesinyucatan00norm
NUTTALL, THOMAS.
Journal of travels into the Arkansa territory, 1819.
Philadelphia. T. H. Palmer. 1821.
https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt
https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt_0
OBER, F. A.
Acoma, a picturesque pueblo.
(American architect, 29: 65. 1890.)
PALFREY, JOHN GORHAM.
Compendious history of New England. 1494-1775 (1884). volume 1.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 4 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto01palfuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto02palfuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto03palfuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto04palfuoft
PIDGEON, WILLIAM.
Traditions of De-coo-dah, comprising extensive explorations,
surveys and excavations of the remains of the mound builders in
America. (1853).
New York: Horace Thayer. 1858.
https://archive.org/details/traditionsofdeco00inpidg
POWERS, STEPHEN.
Tribes of California.
Washington. 1877.
(United States geographical and geological survey,
Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)
https://archive.org/details/tribescaliforni00powegoog/page/n9/mode/2up
RAE, J.
Indians of Hudson's Bay territories.
(Journal of the Society of Arts, 30: 483. 1882.)
REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR EXPEDITION TO POINT BARROW,
ALASKA [1881-2].
Washington. 1885. (House of Representatives, 48th congress,
2d session Ex. doc. 44.)
https://archive.org/details/reportofpolar00inteuoft
RIGGS, Reverend Dr. STEPHEN R.
Mary and I; forty years with the Sioux.
Chicago: W. G. Holmes. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/maryandifortyyea00riggrich
RINK, Dr. HENRY.
The Eskimo tribes; their distribution and characteristics,
with a comparative vocabulary (volume 11 of the "Middelelser
om Gronland").
Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.
London: Williams & Norgate. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/eskimotribesthei00rinkrich
Tales and traditions of the Eskimo, with a sketch of their
habits, religions, language, etc. (1866-71); translated from
the Danish by the author, edited by Dr. R. Brown.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.
https://archive.org/details/talestraditionso01rink
RONAN, PETER.
Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation, 1813-1890.
Helena: Journal Publishing Company. 1800.
https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch00ronarich
RONDTHALER, Reverend EDWARD.
Life of John Heckewelder;
edited by B. H. Coates.
Philadelphia: T. Ward. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofjohnheckew00rondt
RUTTENBER. E. M.
History of the Indian tribes of Hudson's River: their origin,
manners, etc.
Albany: J. Munsell. 1872.
https://archive.org/details/ruttenberindians00ruttrich
SCHERMERHORN, J. F.
Report, on the western Indians.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
2d series, volume 2.
Boston. 1814.)
https://archive.org/details/correctviewoftha00sche
SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
Notes on the Iroquois.
Albany: E. H. Pease & Company. 1847.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50053
Personal memoirs of a residence of thirty years with
the Indian tribes on the American frontiers, 1-12-1842 (1831).
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.
http://www.fullbooks.com/Personal-Memoirs-Of-A-Residence-Of-Thirty.html
SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.
Life and times of David Zeisberger, apostle of the Indians.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078
SEAVER, JAS. E.
Life of Mary Jemison: Deh-he-wä-mis (1842).
New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan. 1856.
(1918) https://archive.org/details/narrativeoflifeo00seavuoft
SHEA, J. G.
Inquiries respecting the lost neutral nation.
(Schoolcraft's Information respecting the Indian tribes, part. 4.)
See SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
SHELDON, WILLIAM.
Account of the Caraibs.
(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.
Worcester: American Antiquarian Society. 1820.)
SIMPSON, JAMES H.
Journal of a military reconnoissance from Santa Fe to the
Navajo country, 1840. [Navajos and Pueblos.]
Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1852.
https://archive.org/details/journalamilitar00simpgoog
The shortest route to California, with some account
of the Indian tribes [of Utah].
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1860.
https://archive.org/details/shortestroutetoc00simp
SITGREAVES, Capt. L.
Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado rivers.
Washington, 1854.
(Senate ex. doc's, 33d congress, 1st session.)
https://archive.org/details/reportanexpidit00sitggoog
https://archive.org/details/reportanexpedit00engigoog
SKENANDOAH.
Letters on the Iroquois; addressed to Albert Gallatin.
(Reprinted in volume 2 of Craig's "The olden time."
Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton. 1848. 2 volumes.)
SMET, Father P. J. DE.
Letters and sketches, with a narrative of a year's residence
among the Indian tribes of the Rocky Mountains.
Philadelphia: M. Fithian. 1843.
https://archive.org/details/letterssketchesw00smet
Oregon missions and travels over the Rocky Mountains. 1845-6.
New York: Edward Dunigan. 1847.
https://archive.org/details/cihm_40687
Western missions and missionaries.
New York: T. W. Strong. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm01smet/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm0000smet/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsa00smetrich
SMITH, Capt. JOHN.
Description of Virginia. General historie of Virginia. (Works,
1608-1631); edited by E. Arber, Birmingham. 1884.
SPRAGUE, JOHN T.
The origin, progress, and conclusion of the Florida war.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1843.
https://archive.org/details/originprogressa03spragoog
Historical and mythological traditions of the Algonquins, with
a translation of the "Walumolum."
(New York Historical Society.)
STONE, WILLIAM L.
Life and times of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket (1841).
Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/lifeandtimessag01stongoog
Life of Joseph Brant--Thayendanegea (1838).
Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofjosephbran01ston
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifejosephbrant03stongoog
STRACHEY, WILLIAM.
Historie of travaile into Virginia Britannia. (1618?).
London: Hakluyt Society. 1849.
https://archive.org/details/historietravail00majogoog
SWAN, JAMES G.
The Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte's Islands (1874).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 21.
Washington. 1876.)
https://archive.org/details/haidahindians00swanrich
https://archive.org/details/cihm_23957
The Indians of Cape Flattery, Washington Territory. (1868).
(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 16.
Washington. 1870.)
https://archive.org/details/indianscapeflatt00swanrich
https://archive.org/details/b21914084
The northwest coast;
or three years [1852-5] in Washington Territory.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1857.
https://archive.org/details/northwestcoastor00swan
SULLIVAN, Honorable JAMES.
History of the Penobscott Indians.
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
volume 9. Boston. 1804.)
VETROMILE, EUGENE.
The Abnaki Indians.
(Collections of the Maine Historical Society., volume 6.
Portland. 1859.)
https://archive.org/details/abnakisandtheir00vetrgoog
The Abnakis and their history.
New York: J. B. Kirker. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/abnakistheirhist00vetr
WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM. D.
Indian tribes in New England (1839)
(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,
3d series, volume 9. 1846.)
WILLIS, WILLIAM.
The language of the Abnaquies or eastern Indians: appendix by
C. E. Potter. (Collections of the Maine Historical Society,
volume 4.
Portland. 1856.)
WILSON, DANIEL.
The Huron-Iroquois of Canada.
(Translation Royal Society, Canada. 1884.)
https://archive.org/details/cihm_29131/page/n5/mode/2up
ZEISBERGER, DAVID, Moravian Missionary, Ohio.
Diary [1781-1798]; translated from the German and
edited by E. F. Bliss.
Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid01zeisrich
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid02zeisrich
ZYLYFF.
The Ponca chiefs, an Indian's attempt to appeal from the
tomahawk to the courts; with introduction by Inshtatheamba
(Bright Eyes), and dedication by Wendell Phillips.
Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/poncachiefsanin01tibbgoog
AUSTRIA.
GENERAL.
BRYCE, JAMES.
The holy Roman empire (1864).
London: Macmillan & Company.
(1871) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44101
(1915) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.213191
COXE, WILLIAM.
History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792 (1807).
London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof01coxeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof03coxeuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.458810
DUNHAM, S. A.
History of the Germanic empire.
London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani01dunhiala/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani02dunhiala/page/n9/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani03dunhiala/page/n7/mode/2up
DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.
London: John Murray, 4 volumes; George Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmodern01dyer
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40858
FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
The historical geography of Europe.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/b31349638
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeog01free
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01freeuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01free
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra02freeuoft
{xxxi}
GOULD, S. BARING.
GOULD, S. BARING-GOULD.
The story of Germany (Story of the nations).
London: T. F. Unwin.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/storyofgermany00bari/page/n11/mode/2up
HEEREN, A. H. L.
A manual of the history of the political system of Europe and
its colonies (1809); translated from the German.
London: H. G. Bohn.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501449/page/n1/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/manualofhistoryo00heerrich
https://archive.org/details/manual00ofhistoryoheerrich
KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM.
The revolutions of Europe (1771);
from the French.
London: Whittaker & Company. 1839.
https://archive.org/details/revolutionseurop00koch
KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH.
History of Germany (1816); [translated by J. D. Haas].
London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog
New York: Appleton. 1845.
https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog
LATHAM, ROBERT. G.
Ethnology of Europe.
London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.
https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofeurop00lathuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31028
LAVISSE, ERNEST.
General view of the political history of Europe;
translated by Charles Gross.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00laviiala
https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00lavi
https://archive.org/details/generalviewpoli01grosgoog
LEGER, LOUIS.
History of Austro-Hungary (1666; 2d edition., 1878-88);
translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
London: Rivingtons.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/historyofaustroh00lege
https://archive.org/details/ahistoryaustroh00hillgoog
LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
History of Germany.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00lewi
https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00unkngoog
LODGE, RICHARD.
History of modern Europe, 1453-1878.
London: J. Murray. 1885.
New York: Harper Brothers.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00lodguoft
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne017244mbp
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027987092
MALLESON, G. B.
Lost opportunities of the house of Austria
(Royal Historical Society Papers, volume 12, page 225).
MENZEL, WOLFGANG.
History of Germany (1824-5);
translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.
London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany01menzuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany02menzuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany03menzuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historygermanyf00menzgoog
MICHELET, JULES.
A summary of modern history (1827);
translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.
https://archive.org/details/asummarymodernh00michgoog
https://archive.org/details/summaryofmodernh00michuoft
RUSSELL, WILLIAM.
History of modern Europe (1779).
London: George Routledge & Sons. 4 volumes.
Whittaker & Company. 4 volume
New York: Harper Brothers. 3 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historymoderneu01jonegoog
(Epitomized) https://archive.org/details/russellshistory00russgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
SIME, JAMES.
History of Germany.
London: Macmillan & Company. 1874.
New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simerich
https://archive.org/details/historygermany00simegoog
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany0000unse_n7z0/page/n7/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00sime
https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simeuoft
SMYTH, WILLIAM.
Lectures on modern history (1840).
London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.3073
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.2173
TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the
dissolution of the empire.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.
https://archive.org/details/asketchgermanic01turngoog
VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.
Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne
(Works, translated by Smollett and others, 1761, volumes 20-22).
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsoftheempir01voltuoft
MEDIÆVAL.
BUSK, Mrs. WILLIAM.
Mediæval popes, emperors, kings and crusaders.
London: Hookham & Sons. 1854-6. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem01buskuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp01buskgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem02buskuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV2
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp00buskgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem03buskuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem04buskuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV4
COMYN, Sir ROBERT.
History of the western empire, from Charlemagne to Charles V.
[800-1520],
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1841. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne01unkngoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne02unkngoog/page/n7/mode/2up
DURUY, VICTOR.
The history of the middle ages (1839);
translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney, with notes and
revisions by G. B. Adams.
New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00dur
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duru
https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duruuoft
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.169467
HALLAM, HENRY.
View of the state of Europe during the middle ages.
London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.
New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes.
(Volume 3) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33540
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofe01hall
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur01hall
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur02hall
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur03hall
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027794654/page/n3/mode/2up
HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,
Select historical documents of the middle ages.
London: George Bell & Sons. 1892.
New York: Macmillan & Company.
https://archive.org/details/selecthistorical00hendiala
https://archive.org/details/ErnestF.HendersonSelectHistoricalDocumentsOfTheMiddleAges
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186161
https://archive.org/details/selectdocuments00hend
https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186526
STUBBS, WILLIAM.
Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.
New York: MacMillan & Company. 1887.
https://archive.org/details/seventeenlecture00stub
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027811011
The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development
https://archive.org/details/constitutionalh04stubgoog
The Early Plantagenets
https://archive.org/details/earlyplantagenet01stub
16TH-17TH CENTURIES.--REFORMATION--THIRTY YEARS WAR.
CUST, Sir EDWARD,
Lives of the warriors of the thirty years' war.
London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt1custuoft/page/n3/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt2custuoft
GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
The thirty years' war, 1618-1648 (Epochs of history).
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1874.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40082
https://archive.org/details/gardinersamuel00rawsrich
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar00gardgoog
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600gard
https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600
GINDELY, ANTON.
History of the thirty years' war (1869-80):
translated by A. Ten Brook.
London: Richard Bentley & Son.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historythirtyye01broogoog
MALDEN, HENRY E.
Vienna, 1683.
London: Kegan Paul & Company. 1883.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56023
MARTIN, HENRI.
History of France: age of Louis XIV.(1860);
translated by Mrs. Booth.
Boston: Walker, Wise & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_nW0PAAAAYAAJ
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_T30PAAAAYAAJ
MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING.
Don John of Austria, 1547-78.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1883. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria01stiriala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria02stiruoft
MITCHELL, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Life of Wallenstein.
London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.94161
PRAET, JULES VAN.
Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th and 17th
centuries; [translated] edited by Sir Edmund Head.
London: Richard Bentley. 1868.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77834
RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria (1832);
translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
London: Longman.
(1853) https://archive.org/details/FerdinandIAndMaximilianIIOfAustria/page/n5/mode/2up
History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514 (1824);
translated from the German by Philip A. Ashworth.
London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.
(1887) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte01rank
(1909) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankiala
(1915) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankrich
History of the reformation in Germany (1839-43);
translated by Sarah Austin.
London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes.
(1905) https://archive.org/details/historyreformat02rankgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
History of the reign of the emperor Charles V. (1769); with
life of the emperor after his abdication, by W. H. Prescott
(1857).
London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp42robegoog
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreign01robe
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/reignofemperorch02robe
https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof1864robe
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof02robe
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03robe
New York: Hopkins & Seymore
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof01robguat/page/n11/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03roguat/page/n11/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp32robegoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Complete) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof00roberich
TRENCH, RICHARD C.
Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
London: Macmillan & Company, 2d edition. 1872.
(Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up
18TH CENTURY.
BRACKENBURY. Colonel. C. B.
Frederick the great.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/frederickgreat00bracrich
BROGLIE, Duc de.
Frederick the great and Maria Theresa (1882);
translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
London: Low, Marston & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma01brogiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma02brogiala
CARLYLE, THOMAS.
History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, called Frederick the
great (1858).
London: Chapman & Hall.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric37carlgoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric27carlgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric57carlgoog
New York: Harper & Brothers.
(Books 1-19) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2102
(Books 1-21) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25808
(Books 1-5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl
(Books 8-10) https://archive.org/details/friedrichiiofpru03carl
(Books 15-17) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog
New York: Dana Estes and Charles E. Lauriat
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri02carl
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri03carl
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri04carl
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri05carl
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri06carl
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric54carlgoog/page/n12/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric51carlgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric10carlgoog
CUST, Sir Edward.
Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century.
London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight05custgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight00custgoog/page/n4/mode/2up
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight03custgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight04custgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.106238/page/n1/mode/2up
DOVER, Lord.
Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.
London: Longman. 1831.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeoffredericse01doveuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifefredericsec08dovegoog/page/n8/mode/2up
FREDERICK II. (called the great).
History of my own times [1740-1745].
(Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. Volume 1.
London. 1789. 13 volumes.)
(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/vol2historyofmyo00fred
(Part 2) https://archive.org/details/vol3historyofmyo00fred
See CARLYLE, THOMAS for mant other volumes.
GERARD, JAMES W.
The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027872021
https://archive.org/details/peaceutrechtahi00geragoog
KUGLER, FRANCIS.
Pictorial history of Germany during the reign of Frederick the
great (1842); [translated from the German.].
London: H. G. Bohn.
https://archive.org/details/pictorialhistor00menzgoog
LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE
History of England in the 18th century.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/historyofengland06leck/page/n7/mode/2up
LONGMAN, F. W.
Frederick the great and the seven years' war.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.41356
https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatse01long
MACAULAY, Lord.
Essays: Frederick the great (1842).
London: Longmans, Green & Company.
Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.
New York: Maynard, Merrill, &: Co.
https://archive.org/details/essayonfredericg00maca/page/n5/mode/2up
MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.
Loudon [Austrian fieldmarshal, 1743-1790].
London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.
MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.
The French revolution.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.
(1897) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00malluoft
(1893) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00mallrich
(1893) https://archive.org/details/cu31924031498128/page/n9/mode/2up
MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.
History of the French revolution, 1789-1814 (1824);
translated from the French.
London: George Bell & Sons.
https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr00migniala
https://archive.org/details/historyfrenchre03conggoog
RAUMER, FREDERICK VON.
Contributions to modern history: Frederick II. and his times.
London: Charles Knight & Company. 1837.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91064
SCHLOSSER, F. C.
History of the eighteenth century, etc.;
translated by D. Davison.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52. 8 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen03schlgoog
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen08schlgoog
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen01schlgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen02schlgoog/page/n5/mode/2up
STANHOPE, Earl (Lord Mahon).
History of England 1713-1783 (1836-53).
London: John Murray. 7 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland01stan
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland02stan
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland03stan/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland04stan
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland05stan/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland07stan/page/n5/mode/2up
Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz 1853
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4CFTAAAAcAAJ
STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
History of the French revolution. Volumes 1-2.
London: Rivingtons. 1880.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886-91.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr01stepiala
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024309480
THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
History of the French revolution (1827);
translated by F. Shoberl (1854).
New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.
London: Richard Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench01thieuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench02thieuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/v3a4historyoffren03thieuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench04thieuoft
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench05thieuoft
{xxxi}
19TH CENTURY: EARLY AND GENERAL.
ADAMS, Major CHARLES.
Great campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870;
edited by C. C. King.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/greatcampaignssu00adam
ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.
History of Europe, 1789-1815 (1842). 10 volumes.
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr04alisgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr37alisgoog
History of Europe, 1815-1852 (1857). 6 volumes.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope701alisuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef02alis
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope703alisuoft
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropefc04alis
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope705alisuoft
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope706alisuoft
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope707alisuoft
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef08alisuoft
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alisuoft
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alis
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef11alisiala
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef12alisuoft
(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef13alisuoft
(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef14alisuoft
(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef15alisuoft
(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef16alisuoft
(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef17alisuoft
(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef00alisuoft
AUSTRIA.
(North British Review, 44: 27. 1866.)
AUSTRIAN NATIONALITIES AND AUSTRIAN POLICY:
by J. W. W. (Fraser's Magazine., 52: 163. 1855).
DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT-.
Studies in European politics.
Edinburgh: Edmonston &: Douglas. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope01duffgoog
https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope00duffgoog
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027804248
https://archive.org/details/studiesineuropea00granrich
FYFFE, C. A.
History of modern Europe. [1792-1878].
London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes.
New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1881-90. 3 volumes.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6589
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172930/page/n1/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00fyffuoft
JOURNAL OF A NOBLEMAN:
his residence at Vienna during the congress.
London. Philadelphia. 1833.
KELLY, WALTER K.
History of the house of Austria [1792-1848]. And
Genesis or the late Austrian revolution: by an officer of
state [Count Hartig]: translated from the German.
London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.
https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof00kell
KOHL, J. G.
Austria.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
https://archive.org/details/austriaviennapr00kohlgoog
KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
The growth of German unity.
London: David Nutt. 1892.
LANFREY, P.
History of Napoleon I. [translated from the French.].
London: Macmillan & Company. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo01lanfuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapole02lanf
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344834
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo03lanfuoft
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344842
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo04lanfuoft
MALLESON, Colonel George Bruce
Life of Prince Metternich (Statesmen series).
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1888.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &: Co.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00mall
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.181131/page/n3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemet00mall
https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00malluoft
(Audio) https://archive.org/details/life_of_prince_metternich_1611_librivox/lifeofprincemetternich_01_malleson_128kb.mp3
METTERNICH, Prince.
Memoirs [1773-1835]: translated by Mrs. Alexander Napier.
London: Bentley & Son. 1880.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsofprincem02mettuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85236/page/ii/mode/2up
MICHIELS, ALFRED, compiler.
Secret history of the Austrian government.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1859.
https://archive.org/details/secrethistoryau00michgoog
MÜLLER, W.
Political history of recent times, 1816-1875:
translated [and continued to 1881] by John P. Peters.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1882.
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mulliala
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mluoft
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00ml
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00mlgoog
https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00petegoog
ROSE, J. H.
A century of continental history, 1780-1880.
London: Edward Stanford. 1889.
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031187804
STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
Europe, 1789-1815.
London: Macmillan &: Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/europestephens00step
THIERS, ADOLPH.
History of the consulate and the empire of France under
Napoleon (1845-62); translated by D. F. Campbell and H. W. Herbert.
London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 5 volumes.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1894. 12volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire01thieiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyconsulate02thieiala
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire03thieiala
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire04thieiala
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula05thieiala
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire06thieiala
(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire07thieiala
(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire08thieiala
(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula09thieiala
(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire10thieiala
(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire11thieiala
(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire12thieiala
TURNBULL, PETER EVAN
Austria, volume 2.
London: J. Murray. 1840. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria01turngoog/page/n10/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/austria02turngoog/page/n8/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria03turngoog/page/n6/mode/2up
VEHSE, E.
Memoirs of the court, aristocracy and diplomacy of Austria;
translated by Franz Demmler.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1856. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtof01vehs
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtar02vehs
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirscourtari00vehsgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088019769
WEIR, ARCHIBALD.
The historical basis of modern Europe, 1760-1815.
London: Swan Sonnenschein & Company. 1886.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501799
https://archive.org/details/cu31924027892375/page/n7/mode/2up
WHITMAN, SIDNEY.
The realm of the Habsburgs.
London: William Heinemann. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whituoft
https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whit/page/n9/mode/2up
AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, AND THE LESSER PROVINCES.
AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.
(Edinburgh Review, 90: 230. 1849.)
AUSTRIA IN 1848-9.
(Edinburgh Review, 174: 440. 1891.)
BONER, CHARLES.
Transylvania.
London: Longmans. 1865.
https://archive.org/details/transylvaniaits00bonegoog
BRACE, CHARLES LORING.
Hungary in 1851.
New York: Charles Scribner. 1852.
https://archive.org/details/hungaryin1851wit01brac
https://archive.org/details/hungaryinwithan00bracgoog
FELBERMANN, LOUIS.
Hungary and its people.
London: Griffith, Farran & Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/hungaryitspeople00felb
FITZMAURICE, EDMOND.
Home rule in Austria.
(Nineteenth Century, 19: 443. 1886.)
FORSTER, FLORENCE A.
Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir, with a preface by
M. E. Grant Duff.
London: Macmillan & Company. 1880.
https://archive.org/details/francisdekhung00arnoiala
https://archive.org/details/francisdekhunga00forgoog
GERARD, E.
The land beyond the forest [Transylvania].
Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1888. 2 volumes.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57168
https://archive.org/details/cu31924011921420
GODKIN, EDWIN LAWRENCE
History of Hungary and the Magyars.
London: Cassell & Company. 1858.
https://archive.org/details/historyofhungary00godkiala/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/historyhungarya00godkgoog
GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.
My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9 (1851); translated.
London: D. Bogue.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
https://archive.org/details/mylifeactsinhung00grrich
HOFER, ANDREW,
Memoirs of the life of: containing an account of the
transactions in the Tyrol, 1809: [translated] from the German,
by C. H. Hall.
London: John Murray. 1820.
https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeandr00unkngoog
KAY, DAVID.
Home rule in Austria-Hungary.
(Nineteenth Century, 19: 41. 1886.)
https://archive.org/details/austriahungary00kayd
KLAPKA, General GEORGE.
Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary:
translated by O. Wenckstern.
London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep00wencgoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep01klapgoog
MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary,
and Germany.
London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39540
https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00maurgoog/page/n16/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00unkngoog
https://archive.org/details/therevolutionary39540gut
https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymov00maur
PAGET, JOHN.
Travels in Hungary and Transylvania (1839).
London: John Murray.
Philadelphia: Lea &: Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.36331/page/n5/mode/2up
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0001.001.umich.edu/page/II/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/hungarytransylva02pageuoft/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0002.001.umich.edu/page/n9/mode/2up
PARDOE, Miss JULIA.
The city of the Magyar, or Hungary and her institutions in 1839-40.
London: G. Virtue. 1840. 3 volumes.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_City_of_the_Magyar.html?id=S-gDAAAAQAAJ
PATON, A. A.
Highlands and islands of the Adriatic.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1849. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/highlandsislands00pato/page/n7/mode/2up
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dzbNcsnbcOYC
PATTERSON, ARTHUR J.
The Magyars: their country and institutions.
London: Smith, Elder & Company. 1869. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou06johngoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou01pattgoog/page/n6/mode/2up
PLANTA, JOSEPH.
History of the Helvetic confederacy.
London. 1800. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhelveti01planuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic02plangoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic00plangoog
PRICE, BONAMY.
Austria and Hungary.
(Fraser's Magazine, 65: 384. 1862.)
STILES, WILLIAM. H.
Austria in 1848-49.
New York: Harper & Brothers. 1852-3. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020130
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020148
SZABAD, EMERIC.
Hungary, past and present.
Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.
https://archive.org/details/hungarypastandp00szabgoog/page/n4/mode/2up
VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, and LOUIS HEILPRIN.
The story of Hungary (Story of the nations).
New York: G. P. Putnam‘s Sons. 1886.
London: T. F. Unwin.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50038
https://archive.org/details/storyhungary00vmgoog
AUSTRIA AND ITALY.
ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.
Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto02arrigoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto01arrigoog
AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND ITALY.
(Edinburgh Review., 109: 286. 1859.)
AUSTRIANS AND ITALY, The.
(Eclectic Magazine, 47: 538. 1859.)
GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.
Autobiography: translated by A. Werner,
with a supplement by Jessie White Mario.
London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/autobiography01gariuoft
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi00garigoog
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi02garigoog
ITALY AND THE WAR OF 1866.
(Westminster Review., 87: 275. 1867.)
MAZADE, CHARLES DE.
Life of Count Cavour.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.
https://archive.org/details/lifeofcountcavou00mazarich
O'CLERY, PATRICK KEYES (The Chevalier O'Clery).
The history of the Italian revolution: 1st period, 1796-1849.
London: R. Washbourne. 1875.
https://archive.org/details/historyitalianr00oclgoog/page/n8/mode/2up
The making of Italy.
London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &: Company. 1892.
https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly18500oclerich
https://archive.org/details/makingitaly00oclgoog
https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly0000ocle/page/n5/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/makingitaly01oclgoog
PROBYN, JOHN W.
Italy, 1815-1890.
London: Cassell & Company. 1891.
https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallofn00probuoft
https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna00probgoog
https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna01probgoog/italyfromfallna01probgoog
STUART, R.
The Austro-Italian alliance.
(Contemporary Review., 40: 921. 1881.)
THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
The dawn of Italian Independence, 1814-1849.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1893. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind01thayiala
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind02thayuoft
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924082152400
WRIGHTSON, RICHARD HEBER
A history of modern Italy [1800-50].
London: Richard Bentley. 1855.
https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.14113
https://archive.org/details/ahistorymoderni00wriggoog
AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.
CHESNEY, C. C.
The campaign [of 1866] in western Germany.
(Blackwood's Magazine, 101: 68. 1867.)
DICEY, EDWARD.
The battlefields of 1866.
London: Tinsley Brothers. 1866.
https://archive.org/details/battlefields00dicegoog
The campaign [of 1866] in Germany.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 386. 1866.)
DICEY, EDWARD T.
The campaign [of 1866] in Italy.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 241. 1866.)
GERMANIC CONFEDERATION and the Austrian empire, The.
(Quarterly Review, 84: 425. 1849.)
HOZIER, H. M.
The seven weeks' war [1866].
London: Macmillan & Company. 1867. 2 volumes.
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238477
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45879
{xxxii}
LOWE, CHARLES.
Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.
London: Cassell & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.
https://archive.org/details/princebismarkhis00lowe
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarckhi01loweiala
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka01lowegoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka02lowegoog
MALET, Sir ALEXANDER.
The overthrow of the Germanic confederation. 1866.
London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1870.
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77288/page/iii/mode/2up
MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.
Battle-fields of Germany.
London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1884.
https://archive.org/details/battlefieldsofge00malluoft
The refounding of the German empire. 1848-71.
London: Seeley & Company. 1893.
https://archive.org/details/refoundingofgerm00mall
PRUSSIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1806.
(Edinburgh Review, 125: 187. 1867.)
RECONSTRUCTION OF GERMANY, The.
(North British Review, 51: 133. 1869.)
SIMON, EDOUARD.
The emperor William and his reign:
from the French.
London: Remington & Company. 1886. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama00simogoog
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama01simogoog
SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
The founding of the German empire by William I.;
based chiefly upon Prussian state documents:
translated by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford, Jr.
New York: T. Y. Crowell & Company. 1890-1. 5 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman01sybe
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman02sybe
(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman03sybe
(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman04sybe
(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman05sybe
(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman06sybe
AUSTRIA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES.
AUSTRIA, GERMANY AND THE EASTERN QUESTION.
(Fraser's Magazine, 96: 407. 1877.)
AUSTRIA'S POLICY IN THE EAST.
(Macmillan's Magazine, 53: 17. 1885.)
BOURCHIER, John David
The sentinel of the Balkans.
(Fortnightly Review., 52: 806. 1889.)
CAILLARD, VINCENT.
The Bulgarian imbroglio.
(Fortnightly Review, 44: 740. 1885.)
FREEMAN; EDWARD A.
The house of Habsburg in south-eastern Europe.
(Fortnightly Review., 51: 839. 1889.)
The position of the Austrian power in south-eastern Europe.
(Contemporary Review., 41: 727. 1882.)
THE RECONSTRUCTED EMPIRE: ITS REFORMS AND POLICY.
AUSTRIA AND HER REFORMS.
(Westminster Review. 75: 503. 1801.)
AUSTRIA SINCE SADOWA.
(Quarterly Review., 131: 90. 1871.)
AUSTRIA: qu'est que c'est l'Austrie?
(Edinburgh Review, 40: 298. 1824.)
AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM.
(Westminster Review, 79: 333. 1863.)
BEUST, FRIEDRICH F. Count VON.
Memoirs [1830-1885].
London: Remington & Company. 2 volumes.
(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.92139
(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsfriedric00beusgoog
BOURCHIER, J. D.
The heritage of the Hapsburgs.
(Fortnightly Review, 51: 377. 1889.)
DILKE, Sir CHARLES W.
Position of European politics, 1887.
London: Chapman & Hall. 1887..
https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91722
DUALISM IN AUSTRIA.
(Westminster Review, 88: 431. 1867.)
FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE AUSTRIAN
EMPIRE.
(Foreign Quarterly Review, 18: 257. 1837.)
NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT.
London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.
---------- End: History for Ready Reference ----------
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 65306 ***